OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Semiannual
Report to Congress
October 1, 2015-March 31, 2016
350-R-16-001
May 2016
-------
Index of Reporting Requirements
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended
Requirement
Section 4(a)(2)
Section 5(a)(1)
Section 5(a)(2)
Section 5(a)(3)
Section 5(a)(4)
Section 5(a)(5)
Section 5(a)(6)
Section 5(a)(7)
Section 5(a)(8)
Section 5(a)(9)
Section 5(a)(10)
Section 5(a)(11)
Section 5(a)(12)
Section 5(a)(14-16)
Subject
Review of legislation and regulations
Significant problems, abuses and deficiencies
Significant recommendations for corrective action
Reports with corrective action not completed
Matters referred to prosecutive authorities
Information or assistance refused
List of reports issued
Summaries of significant reports
Audit, inspection and evaluation reports—questioned costs
Audit, inspection and evaluation reports—funds to be put to better use
Prior audit, inspection and evaluation reports unresolved
Significant revised management decisions
Significant management decisions with which OIG disagreed
Peer reviews conducted
Pages
31
7, 9-29
7, 9-18,24-28
44-68
19-22,28,36, 38
5
39-41
7, 9-18,24-28, 31
6, 36-37, 39-41
6, 36-37, 39-41
36-37, 42-43
None
None
72
Abbreviations
CFR
CSB
EPA
FBI
FY
OHS
OIG
STAR
Code of Federal Regulations
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Fiscal Year
Office of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General
Science to Achieve Results
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (241OT)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oig
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Message to Congress
Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
During this semiannual period, we looked at many issues of interest to the
public. We performed independent and objective work on such key areas as
water quality, and whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
conducts important assessments in an unbiased manner. We also looked at
whether the agency ensures there is sufficient financial assurance to pay for
land cleanups, monitors background investigations properly, and sufficiently
controls administrative leave. Investigations detected instances of fraud, waste
and abuse, resulting in criminal convictions and dollars recouped.
Water Quality
The ongoing crisis in Flint, Michigan, regarding drinking water contaminated
with lead, has drawn significant attention to water quality throughout the
United States. During the semiannual reporting period, we completed and
published a report discussing problems being confronted by small community water systems. We define
small systems as those servicing 3,300 or fewer residents year-round, and there are more than 42,000 such
systems in the United States serving an estimated 24.4 million people in total (although the Flint system is
not one of them). Small systems especially face problems in that they have limited financial resources and
are less likely to have the technical capability of larger systems. Our review showed that in Puerto Rico
alone nearly 200,000 people lack safe drinking water.
Regarding the situation in Flint, my office is examining the circumstances of, and the EPA's response to,
contamination in the city's community water system, including the EPA's exercise of its oversight
authority. Just after the semiannual reporting period closed, we sent a team to visit the community, and
our work includes interviewing residents who submitted complaints to the EPA, the Office of Inspector
General and the White House as far back as April 2014.
Also, in Colorado, we are looking into the August 2015 release from the Gold King Mine of
approximately 3 million gallons of contaminated water into a tributary of the Animas River.
During the semiannual period, we completed a review regarding the EPA's decision to conduct an
assessment of the Bristol Bay Watershed in Alaska. We found no evidence of bias in how the EPA
conducted its assessment of the watershed, or that the agency predetermined the assessment outcome.
However, we did find a possible misuse of a position in that an EPA Region 10 employee used personal
nongovernmental email to provide comments on a petition from tribes before the tribes submitted the
petition to the EPA. The petition sought to prevent discharge of dredged or fill material associated with
large-scale mining in the area.
Business Practices
We issued a management alert report expressing concern about the EPA's oversight and management of
financial assurance for land cleanups. Companies may be required to provide financial assurance that they
can pay for their share of cleanups. EPA data for corporate self-assurance show that $577 million is
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
expired and more than $6 billion is insufficient or not documented as being provided to the EPA.
Environmental and financial risks exist from the EPA's failure to have complete and accurate data. If
companies cannot pay what they committed to pay for cleanups, the financial burden may fall onto the
taxpayers.
The EPA did not sufficiently monitor its Personnel Security Branch support contracts for the conducting
of background checks. While the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is responsible for conducting the
background investigations, the EPA uses two support contracts to assist with the processing. We found
that contracting officers were not performing invoice reviews, and contractor incentive fees were paid
without adequate evidence that the contractor met standards. Additionally, the EPA does not have an
interagency agreement in place with the Office of Personnel Management to ensure proper management
and oversight of the services and billings between the agencies.
Further, we found that the EPA's use of extended administrative leave can result in unnecessary and
excessive payroll costs, and lack of documentation and justification can lead others to second guess the
agency's decisions. For just seven people about whom we reviewed administrative leave, we found that
more than 15,000 in administrative leave hours were provided.
Investigations
Various investigations addressed fraud, waste and abuse. The former Chief Executive Officer of a
Canadian company that specializes in treatment and disposal of contaminated soil was found guilty of
conspiring to pay kickbacks and committing major fraud in connection with work at the Federal Creosote
Superfund site in New Jersey. Ten other individuals already have been convicted of crimes related to this
investigation. As a result of another investigation, a Massachusetts company agreed to pay $190,000 for
disadvantaged business enterprise fraud. Two Montana officials received several years of jail time for
embezzling from a tribe, and were each ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution.
Protecting People and the Planet
Water is vital to life, both for the people who use it and the planet itself. The importance of protecting water
is a topic that appears frequently in this Semiannual Report to Congress—whether it be better managing
small community water systems or assessing the Bristol Bay Watershed in Alaska. Protecting the air and land
is also vital, and we talk about ways the agency can improve its efforts in those areas as well, both to better
protect human health and the environment as well as to improve the EPA's business practices and
accountability. To learn more about what we found during this reporting period, please read on.
Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
Inspector General
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Table of Contents
About EPA and Its Office of Inspector General 1
Scoreboard of Results 2
Furthering EPA's Goals and Strategies 3
Impediments to OIG Efforts 5
OIG Identifies Funds to Put to Better Use and
Health and Environmental Concerns 6
Significant OIG Activity 7
Congressional Activities 7
Human Health and Environmental Issues 9
Agency Business Practices and Accountability 13
Investigations 19
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 23
Hotline Activities 26
Other Activities 31
Other Results of OIG Work 32
Follow-Up Important Aspect of OIG Efforts 32
Single Audit Reporting Efforts Make Impact 33
Actions Taken on Reports Result in Improvements 34
Agency Best Practices Noted 35
Statistical Data 36
Profile of Activities and Results 36
Audit, Inspection and Evaluation Report Resolution 37
Summary of Investigative Results 38
Appendices 39
Appendix 1—Reports Issued 39
Appendix 2—Reports Issued Without Management Decisions 42
Appendix 3—Reports With Corrective Action Not Completed 44
Appendix 4—Peer Reviews Conducted 72
Appendix 5—OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers 73
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
About EPA and Its
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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
EPA OIG Peer Reviewed
The systems of quality control for the
EPA OIG are peer reviewed by another
OIG on a regular basis to ensure the EPA
OIG satisfies professional standards. The
last external peer review of the EPA
OIG's audit and evaluation offices was
completed in June 2015 and the last
external peer review of the EPA OIG's
investigations office was completed in
December 2014. Both reviews gave the
EPA OIG the highest rating possible-
pass. Further details are in Appendix 4.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG), 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
(CSB). 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, 2015—March 31, 2016
Scoreboard of Results
The information below shows the taxpayers' return on investment for the work performed by the EPA
OIG during the first half of fiscal year (FY) 2016 compared to FY 2016 annual performance goal targets.
All results reported are based on goals and plans established based on the Government Performance and
Results Act.
Annual Performance Goal 1:
Environmental and business outcome actions taken or realized by the EPA (based on OIG recommendations)
Target: 274
Reported: 166
(60% of goal)
Supporting measures
164 Environmental and management actions implemented or improvements made
1 Critical congressional and public concern addressed
1 Legislative or regulatory change made
Annual Performance Goal 2:
OIG environmental and business output recommendations, awareness briefing or testimony (for agency action)
Target: 1,094
Reported: 499
(45% of goal)
Supporting measures
179 Environmental and management recommendations or referrals for action
247 OIG-identified findings in external reports impacting EPA
29 Environmental and management risks and vulnerabilities identified
44 External awareness briefings, training or testimony given
Annual Performance Goal 3:
Monetary return on investment - potential monetary return on investment as percentage (220%) of budget
Target: 220% return on
investment
Reported: $4.1 million
(7.9% of goal)
Supporting measures
$22,208 Questioned costs
$702,185 Recommended efficiencies, costs saved
$233,940 Fines, penalties, settlements and restitutions resulting from OIG investigations
$3,182,920 Fines, penalties, settlements and restitutions resulting from joint investigations
between EPA OIG and other federal entities
Annual Performance Goal 4:
Criminal, civil and administrative actions reducing risk or loss/operational integrity
Target: 145
Reported: 83
(57% of goal)
Supporting measures
5 Criminal convictions
7 Indictments, informations and complaints
2 Civil actions
27 Administrative actions (other than debarments or suspensions)
1 0 Suspension or debarment actions
5 Allegations disproved
27 Fraud briefings
Other (no targets established)
Savings and recommendations sustained from current and prior periods:
• $400,000 in questioned costs sustained
• 155 recommendations sustained (82% of recommendations issued)
Reports Issued: 124
• 28 reports issued by EPA OIG
• 96 issued by Single Auditors
Sources: OIG Performance Measurement and Results System and Inspector General Enterprise Management System.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Furthering EPA's Goals and Strategies
When conducting our audit and evaluation work during the first half of FY 2016, we took into account the EPA's
five strategic goals and four cross-agency strategies in the agency's FYs 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. The table below
shows how our reports on the EPA aligned with the agency's goals/strategies.
OIG-lssued Reports — Linkage to EPA Goals and Strategies
OIG Report
EPA Needs to Improve Security
Planning and Remediation of
Identified Weaknesses In Systems
Used to Protect Human Health and
the Environment
EPA Needs Policies and Procedures
to Manage Public Pesticide Petitions
in a Transparent and Efficient
Manner
Administrative Leave Decisions
for EPA Employee Disciplinary
Actions Should Be Better
Documented, and Parameters
on Use of Such Leave Should
Be Established
Fiscal Year 2015 Federal
Information Security Modernization
Act Report: Status of EPA's
Information Security Program
Awards Made by EPAs Office of the
Chief Financial Officer Raise
Questions
EPA Is Documenting How It
Addresses Time-Critical Public
Health Risks Under Its Superfund
Authority
EPA's Background Investigation
Support Contracts and 0PM Billings
Need Better Oversight and Internal
Controls
EPA Can Strengthen Its Reviews
of Small Particle Monitoring in
Region 6 to Better Ensure
Effectiveness of Air Monitoring
Network
EPA's Tracking and Reporting of Its
Conference Costs Need
Improvement
EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed
Assessment: Obtainable Records
Show EPA Followed Required
Procedures Without Bias or
Predetermination, but a Possible
Misuse of Position Noted
EPA Needs to Improve Its
Information Technology Audit
Fol low-Up Processes
Fol low-Up Report: EPA Has
Developed Measures to Improve
Training for Risk Management
Program Inspectors
Report No.
16-P-0006
16-P-0019
16-P-0036
16-P-0039
16-P-0048
16-P-0059
16-P-0078
16-P-0079
16-P-0081
16-P-0082
16-P-0100
16-P-0101
Climate
Change/
Air
Quality
X
Protecting
America's
Waters
X
Cleaning
Communities/
Sustainable
Development
X
Safe
Chemicals/
Preventing
Pollution
X
Enforcing
Laws/
Ensuring
Compliance
X
X
Working
Toward
Sustainable
Future
Making
Difference in
Communities
State, Tribal,
Local and
International
Partnerships
X
Embracing
EPA as High-
Performing
Organization
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
OIG Report
EPA Has Not Met Statutory
Requirements for Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility Inspections, but Inspection
Rates Are High
Positioning EPA for the Digital Age
Requires New Mindsets Toward
Printing
Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Take
Additional Steps to Ensure Small
Community Water Systems
Designated as Serious Violators
Achieve Compliance
Management of Overtime Improved
at EPA's Immediate Office of Air and
Radiation
No Intent to Underestimate Costs
Was Found, but Supporting
Documentation for EPA's Final Rule
Limiting Sulfur in Gasoline Was
Incomplete or Inaccurate in Several
Instances
EPA's Fiscal Year 2015 Purchase
Card and Convenience Check
Program Assessed as Low Risk
EPA Offices Are Aware of the
Agency's Science to Achieve Results
Program, but Challenges Remain in
Measuring and Internally
Communicating Research Results
That Advance the Agency's Mission
Management Alert: Significant Data
Quality Deficiencies Impede EPA's
Ability to Ensure Companies Can
Pay for Cleanups
Report No.
16-P-0104
16-P-0107
16-P-0108
16-P-0111
16-P-0122
16-P-0124
16-P-0125
16-P-0126
Totals
Climate
Change/
Air
Quality
X
2
Protecting
America's
Waters
X
2
Cleaning
Communities/
Sustainable
Development
X
2
Safe
Chemicals/
Preventing
Pollution
1
Enforcing
Laws/
Ensuring
Compliance
X
X
X
5
Working
Toward
Sustainable
Future
0
Making
Difference in
Communities
0
State, Tribal,
Local and
International
Partnerships
X
2
Embracing
EPA as High-
Performing
Organization
X
X
X
X
12
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Impediments to OIG Efforts
Office of Homeland Security Continued to Block Access
In the previous Semiannual Report to Congress, we reported theoretical progress with
regard to the long-standing denial of access for the OIG by the EPA's Office of
Homeland Security (OHS) to information sought by the OIG. After considerable delay,
OHS provided some documents to the OIG but continued to deny access to others.
During the semiannual reporting period ending March 31, 2016, senior officials from the
OIG and EPA met with senior Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials about,
among other things, any FBI insistence on restricting access by the OIG to any
information shared with or held by the EPA. In short, the FBI assured the OIG and EPA
that the FBI sought no restriction, and agreed that FBI information could be shared with
the OIG. However, once again, when it came to implementation, OHS has asserted that it
will not inform OIG of cases unless OHS determines the matter is within OIG
jurisdiction.
Under the Inspector General Act, the OIG is to have access to all information "available
to" the agency. Only the OIG—not some agency component—can determine whether it
will pursue or forego further investigation of a matter. OHS continues to impede the
OIG's carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
Also during this semiannual reporting period, OHS worked on developing "Insider
Threat" rules and structure. Initially, the OHS approach gave the OIG a minimal role.
OHS asked the OIG to comment on the policy only a few weeks before it planned to
finalize the document. The OIG was not considered to be a primary party for the purpose
of developing policy and procedure documents, and was not a part of the Governance
Board nor the decision-making hub. This is of concern given that insider threat cases
involve employee misconduct, and the OIG is the sole entity in the agency that can
investigate allegations of employee misconduct. After lengthy negotiations, OHS agreed
to include the OIG as a central entity in the Insider Threat Program.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
OIG Identifies Funds to Put to Better Use and
Health and Environmental Concerns
During the semiannual reporting period, a number of reports that we issued noted
instances of funds that could potentially be put to better use. For example:
• Data quality deficiencies and a lack of internal controls prevent the EPA from
properly managing financial assurance for land cleanups. EPA data for corporate
self-assurance showed that $577 million is expired and more than $6 billion is
insufficient or not documented. If companies cannot pay what they committed to
pay for cleanups, taxpayers may need to pay instead. (Report No. 16-P-0126)
• The EPA is spending up to $ 1.2 million per year storing publications, many of
which are old and outdated, and the agency can save significant funds by
updating its printing guidance—which is more than 20 years old—to address the
need for fewer printed items in the digital age. (Report No. 16-P-0107)
• By performing the required analysis and documenting the results, the EPA can
have better assurance that a contractor is meeting performance standards, and the
EPA can put $182,000 in incentive fees to better use. (Report No. 16-P-0078)
In addition, we found instances in which the EPA can better protect human health and the
environment. For example:
• The EPA can do more to protect the public from contaminated drinking water in
small community water systems. These systems serve an estimated 24.4 million
people nationwide, and due to their limited resources are particularly vulnerable
to problems. (Report No. 16-P-0108)
• Generally, state and local annual monitoring network plans in Region 6 included
most information required for monitoring air for fine particulate matter, but
annual plans did not include evidence to demonstrate monitoring sites were, in
fact, in compliance with siting requirements. (Report No. 16-P-0079)
• The EPA does not have policies or procedures to ensure transparency when
managing public petitions related to pesticides the agency regulates. The EPA did
not effectively communicate with petitioners through updates on agency work to
resolve petitions or on petition decisions. (Report No. 16-P-0019)
Details on these and other issues are in the "Significant OIG Activity" section.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Significant OIG Activity
Congressional Activities
Report
EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: Obtainable Records Show
EPA Followed Required Procedures Without Bias or Predetermination,
but a Possible Misuse of Position Noted
Report No. 16-P-0082, issued January 13, 2016
Click here for a podcast
about our report on the
Bristol Bay watershed.
Based in part on congressional inquiries and hotline complaints,
we conducted this review regarding the actions of the EPA and
its decision to conduct an assessment of the Bristol Bay
watershed in Alaska. We found no evidence of bias in how the
EPA conducted its assessment of the watershed, or that the EPA predetermined the
assessment outcome. The EPA's assessment appropriately included sections on the three
primary phases discussed in the agency's ecological risk assessment guidelines. Further,
the EPA met requirements for peer review and verifying information quality. However,
we did find a possible misuse of position in that an EPA Region 10 employee used
personal nongovernmental email to provide comments on a draft Clean Water Act
petition from tribes before the tribes submitted the petition to
the EPA. The petition was to prevent the discharge of dredged
or fill material associated with large-scale mining in the
Bristol Bay area. Agency employees must remain impartial in
dealings with outside parties, particularly those that have or
are considering petitioning the agency. This employee retired
from the EPA in April 2013. The agency concurred with our
recommendations designed to prevent possible misuse of
position in the future.
The Bristol Bay, Alaska, watershed study
area. (EPA photo)
Briefings
Frequent Briefings Provided to Congress
During this semiannual reporting period, the OIG provided more than 18 briefings to
Congress on the OIG's work. We regularly offered more focused presentations on
individual topics. Additional OIG work attracting much congressional interest included
the ongoing assessment of whether the EPA complied with the reporting requirements of
laws authorizing the Renewable Fuel Standard, and updated the lifecycle supporting that
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
standard with findings from the statutorily mandated National Academy of Sciences.
Another ongoing review, looking into the cause of, and the EPA's response to, an August
2015 spill of heavy metals from the Gold King Mine into a tributary to the Animas River
in Colorado, continues to generate many inquiries.
We briefed committee staff on findings and recommendations related to the OIG's review
on whether the EPA conducted an assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed in Alaska in a
biased manner, predetermined the outcome, and followed policies and procedures for
reviewing and verifying quality. We also briefed legislative staff on work that determined
whether the EPA has adequate policies and procedures in place for the use of
administrative leave in connection with employee conduct and disciplinary actions.
During this reporting period, the OIG received many congressional requests for specific
data.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Human Health and Environmental Issues
Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small Community
Water Systems Designated as Serious Violators Achieve Compliance
Report No. 16-P-0108, issued March 22, 2016
Click here for a podcast
about our report on small
community water systems.
EPA efforts to bring small community water systems into
compliance through enforcement and compliance assistance
resulted in some improvement, but the EPA needs to take
additional steps to protect the public from contaminated
drinking water. Small community water systems, defined as providing drinking water to
3,300 or fewer residents year-round, serve an estimated 24.4 million people in the United
States through about 42,200 systems. Small systems have limited financial resources and
are less likely to have the technical capability of larger systems. In October 2011, the EPA
designated 193 small systems nationwide as serious violators with Tier 1 violations; such
violations reflect the most serious public health-related violations, requiring public
notification to customers within 24 hours. Of those 193 systems, 84 are collectively in
Puerto Rico, Texas and Kansas, so we focused our 2015 review on those locations. Some
of the systems reviewed in Texas had made progress toward compliance, but we found less
progress in Kansas, and a lack of progress in Puerto Rico
was of particular concern. For example, monitoring
samples from 2013 showed that 35 percent of the small
systems in Puerto Rico violated fecal coliform standards,
and territory officials said that they had informed drinking
water systems to issue boil water notices more than
2,000 times that year. Nearly, 200,000 people in
Puerto Rico still lack safe drinking water. We made
various recommendations to the EPA to improve its
compliance assistance and oversight of enforcement
efforts, and the agency concurred with all of them.
Drinking water storage tanks in a community water
system in Puerto Rico that lack functioning
chlorination equipment. (EPA OIG photo)
EPA Can Strengthen Its Reviews of Small Particle Monitoring in Region 6 to
Better Ensure Effectiveness of Air Monitoring Network
Report No. 16-P-0079, issued December 17, 2015
Generally, state and local annual monitoring network plans in Region 6 included most
information required by the EPA for monitoring the air for fine particulate matter. Also,
Region 6 identified several issues in its review of annual plans to help ensure monitoring
networks were operated in accordance with requirements. However, annual plans did not
include evidence to demonstrate monitoring sites were, in fact, in compliance with siting
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
HUMAN HAIR
50-70nm
(microns) in diameter
CPM2.5
Combustion particles, organic
compounds, metals, etc.
<2.5(im (microns) in diameter
Dust, pollen, mold, etc.
(microns) in diameter
90 HIT1 (microns) in diameter
FINE BEACH SAND
Image noting relative size of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5)
(EPA image)
requirements. The EPA needs to clarify this
concept so that states can better address this annual
plan requirement. Properly located monitors protect
public health by demonstrating whether air quality
meets health standards, and provides the public
with timely information on air quality. We
recommended that the agency clarify what
constitutes sufficient evidence to demonstrate
compliance with siting and operational
requirements, develop a process to update analytic
tools for future assessments, and emphasize the
importance of network assessments. The agency
agreed with our recommendations and provided
acceptable completion dates.
EPA Needs Policies and Procedures to Manage Public Pesticide Petitions in a
Transparent and Efficient Manner
Report No. 16-P-0019, issued October 27, 2015
The EPA does not have policies or procedures to ensure transparency when managing
public petitions related to pesticides the agency regulates. Public petitions can be
submitted to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs for rulemaking; to modify or revoke
pesticide tolerances; to cancel a pesticide's registration; or to request a specific action on
a policy, guidance or agency process. Due to a lack of transparency and direct
communication, some petitioners sued the EPA for "unreasonable delay," resulting in
unnecessary costs to the agency and public. Our review found that the Office of Pesticide
Programs did not effectively communicate with petitioners by acknowledging petition
receipt, providing updates about the agency's work to resolve petitions, and providing
petition decisions. We also found that the Office of Pesticide Programs lacks policies and
procedures to manage petitions in a generally efficient or effective manner. The EPA
agreed to take corrective actions for all recommendations.
Types of public petitions managed by Office of Pesticide Programs
Public petition
Registration
Rulemaking
Policy
Tolerance
Actions requested
A petition from the public to
registration or registrations.
cancel (terminate), suspend or modify a pesticide
A petition from the public to request the EPA initiate an Administrative
Procedure Act rulemaking to change the EPA's regulations.
A petition from the public to
agency process.
A petition from the public to
tolerances.
request a specific action on a policy, guidance or
revoke or modify a pesticide tolerance or
Source: EPA Office of General Counsel.
10
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Hazardous waste material barrels. (EPA photo)
EPA Has Not Met Statutory Requirements for Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facility Inspections, but Inspection Rates Are High
Report No. 16-P-0104, issued March 11, 2016
Overall, the EPA had a high inspection completion rate of 91 percent for Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities
(656 out of a universe of 718 facilities
reviewed). However, specific inspection
completion rates varied for the three types of
facilities: 94 percent for private facilities;
85 percent for federal facilities; and 54 percent
for state or local facilities. Although the EPA's
overall inspection completion rate is high, the
agency did not fully meet the legal requirement
for inspecting 100 percent of such facilities
for FY 2014. Missed inspections violate legal
requirements and can increase the risk of exposure to hazardous substances. There are
about 60,000 hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities in the United
States, which generate and manage 30 to 40 million tons of hazardous waste annually.
Based on our recommendation, the agency agreed to implement management controls to
complete the required inspections at treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
EPA Offices Are Aware of the Agency's Science to Achieve Results Program,
but Challenges Remain in Measuring and Internally Communicating Results
That Advance the Agency's Mission
Report No. 16-P-0125, issued March 30, 2016
Our survey of Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant users within the EPA found that
over 75 percent of respondents were very familiar with the STAR program, and
74 percent had an awareness of the
impacts of STAR research on
mission-oriented work within the
EPA's program offices. The STAR
program has awarded over
$1 billion through grants and
fellowships since 1995. Despite the
general awareness of the program
within the EPA, challenges remain
in measuring and communicating
research results. Survey respondents
suggested that the agency's Office
Satisfaction with communication of STAR results of Research and Development needs
Source: OIG analysis of survey responses.
• Very satisfied
i Satisfied
' Neither dissatisfied nor
satisfied
: Dissatisfied
i Very dissatisfied
11
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
to enhance the review and award process, as well as communication associated with
STAR grant research results. Further, the EPA has not officially established defined goals
and objectives for the STAR program and cannot demonstrate how the program advances
the agency's mission. We recommended that the EPA create pre-award procedures that
ensure consideration of program office input; develop and implement communication
procedures; and formally establish goals, objectives and performance measures. The
agency agreed with all our recommendations.
Follow-Up Report: EPA Has Developed Measures to Improve Training for
Risk Management Program Inspectors
Report No. 16-P-0101, issued March 10, 2016
Improvements by the EPA should help to ensure that Risk Management Program
inspectors are properly trained to conduct quality inspections that prevent chemical
releases into the air. The OIG previously had found that the EPA's management controls
did not ensure these inspectors and their first-line supervisors met training requirements.
Our follow-up review found that actions taken by the agency to improve inspector
training have been completed, and no further action is required.
EPA Is Documenting How It Addresses Time-Critical Public Health Risks
Under Its Superfund Authority
Report No. 16-P-0059, issued December 9, 2015
We found that the EPA can provide documentation that For more information on
imminent and substantial endangerment threats to public hazardous waste cleanups near
health at Superfund time-critical removal sites have you'visit the EPA'S clea""Psi"
My Community web page.
been addressed. In a detailed review of three sites
located in different EPA regions, we found that site removal records contained
documentation to support EPA regions' conclusions that potential threats were addressed.
EPA documentation of work conducted at time-critical removal sites provides assurance
that imminent human and environmental health issues are addressed. Therefore, we made
no recommendations.
12
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Agency Business Practices and Accountability
Management Alert: Significant Data Quality Deficiencies Impede EPA's Ability
to Ensure Companies Can Pay for Cleanups
Report No. 16-P-0126, issued March 31, 2016
Data quality deficiencies and a lack of internal controls prevent the EPA from properly
overseeing and managing financial assurance for land cleanups. Companies with facilities
regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund sites) are required
to provide financial assurance that they can pay for their share of cleanups. EPA data for
corporate self-assurance showed that $577 million is expired
and more than $6 billion is insufficient or not documented as
being provided to the EPA. Environmental and financial risks
exist from the EPA's failure to have complete and accurate
data; if companies cannot pay what they committed to pay for
cleanups, taxpayer funds may be used instead. In these cases,
the financial burden shifts from the responsible private party
onto taxpayers. In addition, site or facility cleanup delays
from a lack of sufficient financial assurance create a risk of
longer exposures to unsafe chemicals or longer periods where
natural resources are restricted and unavailable for use. The
agency has not taken meaningful steps to address the
problem, and has not disclosed this area of vulnerability in its
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act report in the last
5 years. The agency disagreed with our findings, and we are
working toward resolution. Although we reported this issue in a "Management Alert" due
to its time-critical nature, our ongoing evaluation could result in additional matters being
reported to the agency. We issued the Management Alert because we believe that the
EPA cannot provide reasonable assurance of proper controls over its programs and
operations that protect the public from environmental harm and safeguard federal funds.
EPA's Background Investigation Support Contracts and OPM Billings Need
Better Oversight and Internal Controls
Report No. 16-P-0078, issued December 14, 2015
The EPA did not monitor its Personnel Security Branch support contracts for compliance
with the terms and conditions of the contracts. Each year the EPA spends millions of
dollars on background investigations. While the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is
responsible for conducting the background investigations, the EPA's Personnel Security
Branch uses two support contracts to assist with the processing. We found that
The Asarco Copper Smelter Site in Hayden,
Arizona. This site is associated with a
bankruptcy settlement agreement reached
between Asarco and the federal government.
(EPA photo)
13
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
contracting officers were not performing invoice reviews, proper contract documentation
was not being maintained, and contractor incentive fees were paid without adequate
evidence that the contractor met quality assurance standards. By not maintaining contract
documentation, the EPA did not have reasonable assurance that work was progressing
according to the contract, or that billings were correct. On one contract, the agency
awarded over $545,000 in incentive fees without adequate support. Also, the EPA does
not have an interagency agreement in place with the Office of Personnel Management for
background investigation services, so the EPA cannot ensure proper management and
oversight of the services and billings between the agencies. The EPA has overpaid
approximately $6,000 over the last 21A years to the Office of Personnel Management. The
EPA agreed with all 14 of our recommendations and provided expected completion dates.
Administrative Leave Decisions for EPA Employee Disciplinary Actions
Should Be Better Documented, and Parameters on Use of Such Leave
Should Be Established
Report No. 16-P-0036, issued November 9, 2015
The EPA's use of extended administrative leave can result in unnecessary and excessive
payroll costs, and lack of documentation and justification can lead others to second guess
the agency's decisions. Although the EPA has policies for the use of administrative leave,
those policies can be improved regarding documentation and parameters for how much
administrative leave should be approved. We found that the EPA's use of administrative
leave appears disproportionate when compared to federal guidance, which indicates
administrative leave should not be used for an extended period of time. As shown in the
table, for all but one of the employees in our audit, the cases involved administrative
leave of 4 months or more, which we do not consider a brief absence.
Summary of administrative leave taken
Case
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Administrative
leave hours
2,116
5,881
756
....
3,561
1,281
300
1,120
15,015
Period when leave
was taken
08/01/13 - 11/13/14
03/04/10 - 07/08/14
02/05/14 - 06/19/14
Excluded from analysis *
01/27/12 - 12/27/13
03/17/14 - 10/30/14
09/12/13 - 01/08/14
04/15/14 - 10/31/14
Sources: OIG analysis and EPA's Compass Data Warehouse.
* We excluded this employee from our analysis due to an ongoing investigation.
Because of limited documentation in case files, we were unable to determine the basis for
the extended periods of administrative leave. As a result of our recommendations, the
agency updated its administrative leave policy.
14
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
EPA's Tracking and Reporting of Its Conference Costs Need Improvement
Report No. 16-P-0081, issued January 7, 2016
The EPA established internal controls to report conferences to the
OIG and the public, as required by law and federal guidance.
However, we found improvements are needed. For the $985,851
in expenses we reviewed for eight conferences, we found that
$6,916 in expenses (less than 1 percent) for two of those
conferences were inappropriate. Also, we found that some
conference costs were underreported, some conference spending
was not publicly reported as required, and some of the
conferences that had to be reported to the OIG were reported late
or not at all. Addressing these issues will allow the EPA to better
analyze costs and identify efficiencies for conferences. We
recommended that the agency provide additional guidance or
training as needed, use correct conference project codes, identify
all conference costs in the financial system, report all conference costs paid with EPA
funds, and classify conferences properly. The agency agreed to act on all
recommendations.
EPA booth at the Water Environment
Federal Annual Technical Exhibition and
Conference 2012. (EPA photo)
Positioning EPA for the Digital Age Requires New Mindsets Toward Printing
Report No. 16-P-0107, issued March 21, 2016
The EPA's main authoritative guidance for printing operations (Printing Management
Manual) is over 20 years old and outdated. Even though the agency said it hopes to
update the manual once federal regulations are updated, the manual currently does not
provide effective guidance for accountability or oversight. The agency had amassed large
quantities of printed material, as evidenced by the nearly 8 million in items recycled at
the National Service Center for Environmental Publications between June 2013 and
March 2015 as a result of a prior OIG report.
Further, the EPA has yet to implement all
corrective actions identified in that prior report to
develop a plan to strategically source print
management. We recommended that the EPA
update the Printing Management Manual, issue
guidance to reiterate roles and responsibilities,
and establish achievable milestones to address
recommendations in the prior OIG report. The
EPA concurred with all of the recommendations
and is already practicing print-on-demand.
Inside view of the National Service Center
for Environmental Publications in Blue
Ash, Ohio, after recycling 8 million items.
(EPA OIG photo)
15
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Audit of EPA's Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 16-F-0040, issued November 16, 2015
We rendered an unqualified opinion on the EPA's Consolidated Financial Statements for
FYs 2015 and 2014, meaning that they were fairly presented and free of material
misstatements. However, we noted a material weakness involving software costs of about
$124 million and associated amortization totaling $56 million from prior years not being
properly classified. Further, we noted significant deficiencies involving:
EPA OIG One of Few OIGs to Perform
Financial Statement Audits
Having qualified staff and being able to
offer the taxpayer significant savings, the
EPA OIG is one of the few OIGs in the
federal government that conducts financial
statement audits of its agency. (When the
EPA OIG sought to contract out its financial
statement auditing in 2007 per Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76,
Performance of Commercial Activities, the
EPA OIG submitted its own bid and came in
more than $1 million under the lowest
acceptable bid from a Certified Public
Accounting firm.) The EPA OIG team that
audits financial statements is led by an
experienced Certified Public Accountant,
and many of the team members are also
Certified Public Accountants. In addition to
conducting the mandated annual audits of
the agency's overall consolidated financial
statements, the EPA OIG audits the
financial statements for EPA pesticide and
e-manifest funds.
Misstating earned and unearned revenue for Superfund
Special Accounts.
Reconciling property and financial systems.
Resolving long-standing cash differences with the
U.S. Treasury.
Clearing transactions from the suspense account.
Reviewing cancellation of accounts receivable and
collection transactions.
Recording accounts receivable from a Superfund
judgment.
Reconciling accounts receivable subsidiary ledgers and
general ledgers.
Overtoiling a state for a Superfund State Contract.
Overseeing user access to the Payment Tracking System.
Complying with controls for financial and mixed-financial
applications.
Managing HelpDesk procedures for distributing
passwords.
Improving a travel system's credit card data protection.
We also noted an instance of noncompliance with laws and regulations related to
complying with federal accounting standards for recording interest. The agency generally
agreed with our findings and recommendations.
EPA Needs to Improve Security Planning and Remediation of Identified
Weaknesses in Systems Used to Protect Human Health and the Environment
Report No. 16-P-0006, issued October 14, 2015
Xacta is the EPA's official system for recording and maintaining information regarding
compliance with mandated information system security requirements, and is necessary to
enable the EPA to advance the protection of human health and the environment. While
the EPA indicated it took steps to improve the completeness and accuracy of reported
information system security data, more management emphasis is needed to ensure that
16
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Xacta is authorized to operate in accordance with federally mandated requirements and
offices manage known system weaknesses. Xacta was placed into service without
complete and properly approved information system documentation. We recommended
that the agency undertake a number of corrective actions to address security planning in
the EPA's risk management system and improve processes for remediating known
weaknesses. The agency agreed with our recommendations and began taking corrective
actions.
Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Information Security Modernization Act Report:
Status of EPA's Information Security Program
Report No. 16-P-0039, issued November 16, 2015
The EPA met six of the 10 federally mandated metrics for evaluating its information
security, but we found that the lack of a fully developed contractor systems program
hinders the agency in protecting its resources and data. Although the EPA has guidance
in place for oversight contractor systems, significant improvements are needed to
(1) ensure contractors comply with required security controls, (2) maintain an accurate
inventory of contractor systems and (3) identify contractor systems that interface with the
EPA systems. Regarding the three other metrics where we found issues, improvements
are needed regarding identity and access management, risk management, and plan of
action and milestones. We made no recommendations for corrective actions because the
findings on contractor systems were disclosed in a prior OIG report; the EPA indicated it
has completed or is acting on the prior recommendations.
Unauthorised I Phj»hing 10,110
websites 145.592 •^•^•>~~
MMI^^W^dM|] Avoidance
Game connections | " attempts 23,080
466,283 —r-
Gambling website*
30,119
Risky websites
1.975.906
Spyware/Malwire
7,996,123
EPA Firewall Blocks
Suspicious Traffic
OIG analysis of the EPA's network traffic blocked by the agency's firewall.
17
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
EPA Needs to Improve Its Information Technology Audit Follow-Up Processes
Report No. 16-P-0100, issued March 10, 2016
The EPA's audit follow-up oversight regarding information technology security did not
ensure that agreed-to corrective actions were fully implemented, carried out timely,
accurately recorded, or managed effectively in the agency's Management Audit Tracking
System. In addition, corrective actions were not always verified even though the
corrective actions were recorded as completed in the tracking system. A high rate of
unreliable data in the Management Audit Tracking System, and a lack of management
follow-through to verify that corrective actions address weaknesses, raise significant
doubts and questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the EPA's information
security program. We made various new recommendations, including that the agency
develop and implement formal processes to strengthen internal controls for monitoring
and completing corrective actions on open audits. The agency concurred with all of our
new recommendations.
EPA's Fiscal Year 2015 Purchase Card and Convenience Check Program
Assessed as Low Risk
Report No. 16-P-0124, issued March 29, 2016
We assessed the EPA's FY 2015 purchase card and convenience check
program, as required by the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention
Act of 2012, and found the program to be at low risk for illegal, improper
or erroneous purchases and payments. During the first 9 months of
FY 2015, the EPA had purchase card transactions totaling $16.2 million
and convenience check transactions totaling about $133,000. We found
that the EPA had made a number of improvements to its purchase card
policy in response to a prior EPA OIG report. Also, the scope of the
A urchase card (u s General Contract Management Assessment Program purchase card reviews
Services Administration photo) appeared to be thorough. Our report made no recommendations.
18
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Investigations
Significant Investigations
Executive Convicted in New Jersey Superfund Site Kickback Scheme
On March 16, 2016, following a 3-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, a jury found John Bennett—the former Chief Executive Officer of a Canadian
company—guilty of conspiring to pay kickbacks and committing major fraud against the
United States. The charges were in connection with obtaining subcontracts for the
treatment and disposal of contaminated soil at a New Jersey Superfund site overseen by the
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sentencing is scheduled for June 27, 2016. In
addition, one individual and one entity were debarred for their involvement in the scheme.
Beginning in 2001, Bennett conspired with others at Bennett Environmental to pay over
$1 million in kickbacks to the project manager at Federal Creosote, a Superfund site in
Manville, New Jersey, in an effort to guarantee the award of soil treatment contracts to
his company. These kickbacks included money transferred by wire to a co-conspirator's
shell company, lavish trips, entertainment expenses and personal gifts. In exchange for
these gifts and cash payments, the project manager at Federal Creosote provided Bennett
Environmental employees with "last looks" at their competitors' confidential bids that
enabled Bennett Environmental to outbid its competitors at the last minute.
Also, effective October 22, 2015, Gordon McDonald and his company, Gordon
McDonald Environmental Consulting, were debarred from participation in federal
procurement and non-procurement programs for 25 years. McDonald was the Sevenson
Environmental Services Inc. project manager at the Federal Creosote Superfund site.
Over the past 10 years, this investigation at the Federal Creosote site resulted in the
conviction of 10 individuals and three companies on charges including major fraud,
tax fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice. Criminal fines and restitution of
more than $6 million have been imposed as a result of this investigation. The clean-up for
the Federal Creosote Superfund site was partly funded by the EPA under an interagency
agreement between the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice 's Antitrust
Division, including the division's Foreign Commerce Section, and the Criminal
Division's Office of Internal Affairs; and the Internal Revenue Service 's Criminal
Investigation Division. Also assisting were U.S. Customs and Border Protection -
Department of Homeland Security; the Canadian Department of Justice - International
Assistance Group; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
19
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Settlement of $3 Million Reached for Testing Procedures Not Being Followed
A Dayton, New Jersey, company agreed to pay $3 million to settle claims that its
employees failed to strictly follow applicable EPA methods to analyze certain soil and
wastewater semi-volatile analyzer samples. On November 12, 2015, a settlement
agreement was reached between the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, District
of New Jersey, and the company, Accutest Laboratories. Accutest provides services to
industrial, engineering/consulting and government clients. The government contended
that from 2011 through 2013, some employees, agents and/or representatives of the lab
did not strictly follow applicable EPA methods and did not properly extract samples.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the EPA Criminal Investigation Division;
the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the U.S. Army
Criminal Investigation Division, Major Procurement Fraud Unit; the U.S. Navy Criminal
Investigative Service and the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Company to Pay $190,000 for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Fraud
D'Allessandro Corp., an Avon, Massachusetts, company, entered into an assurance of
discontinuance agreement to resolve allegations that it had improperly used a
subcontractor to meet the disadvantaged business enterprise requirements on a number of
public works contracts, several of which involved EPA State Revolving Funds. The
subcontractor—Luxor Equipment—had contracted out the work to non-disadvantaged
business enterprise companies. D'Allessandro Corp., which knew that Luxor Equipment
itself did not meet the disadvantaged requirements, improperly claimed the credit for
using a disadvantaged business enterprise company on the contracts. On November 2,
2015, D'Allessandro Corp. entered into the agreement with the Massachusetts Attorney
General's Office to pay $190,000 to the state for the violation.
Montana Officials Given Jail Time for Embezzlement From Tribe
Neal Paul Rosette Sr., former Chief Financial Officer, and Billi Anne Raining Bird-
Morsette, the former Chief Executive Officer of Plain Green and First American Capital
Resources—online lending entities for the Rocky Boy Indian Tribe in Montana—were
sentenced on March 7, 2016, for conspiracy to embezzle federal funds from the tribe. Both
are residents of the tribe's reservation in Box Elder, Montana. The former Chief Financial
Officer was sentenced to 41 months in jail and 3 years of probation, and ordered to pay
$1.4 million in restitution. The former Chief Executive Officer was sentenced to 38 months
in jail and 3 years of probation, and also ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution. Other
individuals associated with the reservation are currently under indictment or have received
jail time, restitution and other penalties in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana related to bribery and theft in relation to contracts that involved EPA funds.
This investigation is being conducted by Montana's Federal Program Fraud Task Force,
also known as the Guardians Project, which is made up of the FBI; the Internal Revenue
20
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Service; andOIGs of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the EPA.
Alaskan Tribal Council Officials Sentenced for Theft
Steven D. Osborne, of Fairbanks, Alaska, former Executive Director of the Alaska
Inter Tribal Council, was sentenced on October 22, 2015, to 21 months in jail and 3 years
of probation, and ordered to pay $145,000 in restitution, for theft of funds from an
organization receiving federal funding. Also, Thomas R. Purcell of Anchorage, Alaska,
the former Finance Director of the council, was sentenced on October 23, 2015, to
5 years of probation, 200 hours of community service and a fine of $15,000, and ordered
to pay $22,720 in restitution. This investigation was conducted jointly with the FBI.
Former Maine Tribal Official Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement and Theft
On November 16, 2015, Stephen E. Crawford, a former official for the Passamaquoddy
Tribe at Pleasant Point in Maine, pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine to one count of embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization.
From October 2006 through January 2012, the former official traveled in his official
capacity as the environmental director for the tribe, sought and received reimbursement
totaling approximately $25,000 for his travel expenses from third parties, and then
converted that reimbursement to his own use. He did this despite knowing that the tribe
already had reimbursed him for the costs of that travel, and that the third-party
reimbursement therefore rightly belonged to the tribe and not to him.
Mississippi Mayor Suspended From Federal Procurement Following Plea
After pleading guilty to five counts of embezzlement in Rankin County District Court,
a Mississippi mayor was suspended from participating in federal procurement and
assistance activities. The mayor had been the treasurer for a Mississippi Board of Mayors
that was awarded an EPA cooperative agreement worth $120,000. The mayor misused his
city-issued credit card for personal services, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison,
along with paying restitution. On February 2, 2016, the EPA issued a Notice of
Continued Suspension and Proposed Debarment to the mayor.
Former Federal Employee Debarred Over Embezzlement Scheme
On November 25, 2015, a former U.S. Department of Agriculture employee was debarred by
an EPA Suspension and Debarment Official from participation in federally funded projects
for 3 years. Investigative findings from the U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG determined
that the subject—Donna J. Remides, of Jonesville, Louisiana—embezzled $640,000 from
the Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and Development Council—an EPA grantee in
Columbia, Louisiana—over a 10-year period by cashing or depositing council checks, as
21
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
well as checks from a major national retailer, and by charging fuel for a personal vehicle to a
council account. In 2013, the subject had been sentenced in the U.S. District Court of the
Western District of Louisiana to 40 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release for
falsifying loan applications to receive loans used to hide the theft. She also was ordered to
pay $450,000 in restitution. This investigation was conducted jointly with the FBI and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG.
EPA Contractor Ordered to Pay Restitution for Employee Viewing Pornography
On October 6, 2015, an EPA contractor was ordered to pay $22,088 in restitution as a
result of one of its employees watching pornography on an EPA computer. The
investigation disclosed that the employee routinely visited adult sites and installed special
software to delete the Web browsing history on the computer. For 18 years, the
contractor's employee spent approximately 1 to 2 hours a day viewing pornography with
the EPA computer equipment during core work hours.
EPA Employee Receives Suspension for Falsely Reporting a Threat
On February 10, 2016, the OIG was notified that an EPA employee had completed a
14-day suspension for lack of candor during an investigation and conduct unbecoming of
a federal employee. In July 2014, the employee falsely reported that a threat had been
made at an EPA facility in Region 4. When questioned, the employee lied about making
the false report. Later, the employee admitted that the false report had been made in
retaliation for accusations made against the employee that had resulted in an internal EPA
investigation. The false report of the threat resulted in a heightened security level at the
EPA facility and the reallocation of EPA security.
EPA Employee Receives Letter of Warning for Mishandling Information
On March 7, 2016, an EPA GS-14 employee was issued a warning memorandum
regarding proper handling of confidential business information. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers had provided the EPA with confidential business information related to a
dredging project. Evidence obtained during our investigation supported an allegation that
the employee had released confidential business information related to this project to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This unauthorized release resulted in
the information being placed on the state department's public website, as well as the
direct release of the information by the department to an environmental organization. The
employee admitted to releasing the information, but no criminal intent was found.
Although the document was clearly marked as confidential business information not to be
released outside of the EPA, the employee assumed the release was justified because it
was to another regulatory agency. In addition to the letter of warning, the employee was
directed to review the EPA policy related to the handling of confidential business
information, as well as complete a formalized training course related to this subject.
22
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board (CSB) was created by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. The 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 the CSB. As a result, the EPA OIG has the responsibility to audit, evaluate,
inspect and investigate the CSB's programs, and to review proposed laws and regulations
to determine their potential impact on the CSB's programs and operations. Details on our
work involving the CSB are available on the OIG's webpage on CSB.
FY 2015 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Management Challenges
Report No. 16-N-0018, issued October 22, 2015
As required by the Reports Consolidation Act, the OIG provided to CSB the following
issues that it considered to be CSB's major management challenges for FY 2015.
Attention to these challenges could result in stronger results and protection for the public,
and increased confidence in management integrity and accountability.
• CSB Should Address Employee Morale: As noted by the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee in a 2014 hearing, a toxic work environment had
been prevalent at CSB, and although CSB has new leadership, it needs to
continue to make strides regarding employee morale.
• CSB Should Increase Its Investigations and Improve Investigative
Management Controls: CSB needs to increase the number investigations that it
conducts of accidents that fall within its legal jurisdiction. The table below shows
the percentages of such investigations conducted.
FY
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Accidents and investigations with fatalities
Investigations
initiated
2
2
1
5
6
Investigations
not initiated
47
47
64
46
32
Total
49
49
65
51
38
Percent not
investigated
96%
96%
98%
90%
84%
Sources: CSB budget justifications for FYs 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014; CSB performance and
accountability report for FY 2010; and other supporting data.
23
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
• CSB Should Determine the Need for a Chemical Reporting Regulation:
CSB has not published a chemical incident reporting regulation as envisioned in
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
CSB is in a transition period and stated it is working on these areas.
Audit Reports
Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Information Security Modernization Act Report:
Status of CSB's Information Security Program
Report No. 16-P-0086, issued January 27, 2016
The effectiveness of CSB's information security program is challenged by its lack of
personal identity verification cards for logical access into its systems, a complete
inventory of systems operated by a contractor on
behalf of the agency, and documented policies
and procedures for specialized security training.
We determined the CSB's baseline assessment of
its information security areas using the criteria
specified by the FY 2015 Department of
Homeland Security reporting metrics for the
Federal Information Security Modernization Act.
Although we noted the issues above, we found that the CSB information security
program fully met metrics for continuous monitoring management, configuration
management, incident response and reporting, risk management, plan of action and
milestones, remote access management, and contingency planning.
CSB Needs Better Security Controls to Protect Critical Data Stored on Its
Regional Servers
Report No. 16-P-0035, issued November 5, 2015
D
Login with your
PIVorCAC
Remember to plug in
your PIV/CAC card
Example of a required PIV card login.
(MAX.gov login image)
CSB Western Regional Office of Investigations in
Denver, Colorado. (OIG photo)
We found that CSB needs to strengthen physical and
environmental protection for the computer server room at
its Western Region Office of Investigations in Denver,
Colorado. The ineffective server room controls left CSB's
investigative data at risk of theft, loss or damage. Weak
controls include insufficient policies and procedures, as
well as a lack of access control rosters and physical access
logs to control and monitor access. Further, CSB had not:
implemented procedures to escort visitors, secured server
room keys, installed automatic fire suppression capability,
or monitored humidity levels. CSB concurred with our
24
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
various recommendations to improve controls and already has implemented some of the
recommended corrective actions.
Audit of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's
Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 Financial Statements
Report No. 16-F-0041, issued November 16, 2015
The firm that audited CSB's financial statements for FYs 2015 and 2014 on behalf of the
EPA OIG found that the statements were fairly presented and free of material
misstatements. The auditors found no matters involving CSB internal controls that they
considered to be a material weakness, and the firm found no instances of noncompliance.
CSB Complied With Improper Payment Legislation Requirements for
Fiscal Year 2015
Report No. 16-P-0109, issued March 23, 2016
CSB was fully compliant with legislation for improper payments during FY 2015.
Agencies are required to report on, reduce and recapture improper payments, and
Inspectors General are required to determine whether agencies sufficiently do so.
As required, CSB published its Performance and Accountability Report and posted that
report. Further, CSB conducted a risk assessment and did not identify any programs and
activities that are susceptible to significant improper payments.
Significant Investigations
CSB Employee Retires During Management Inquiry
On December 2, 2015, a CSB employee retired from federal service while on
administrative leave during a pending CSB management inquiry. The OIG found that the
employee used a nongovernment email system to communicate on official CSB matters.
By using this approach, those communications were not preserved as official records.
Notice of Proposed Removal Issued to CSB Employee
On November 16, 2015, another CSB employee was issued aNotice of Proposed
Removal from federal service for conduct unbecoming of a federal employee. The
proposal was based, in part, on an OIG Report of Investigation that found the employee
used a nongovernment email system to communicate on official CSB matters. The
employee is currently appealing the Notice of Proposed Removal.
25
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Hotline Activities
The purpose of the EPA OIG Hotline is to receive complaints of fraud, waste or abuse in
EPA programs and operations, including mismanagement or violations of law, rules or
regulations by EPA employees or program participants. Examples of reportable
violations include contract, procurement and grant fraud; bribery and acceptance of
gratuities; significant mismanagement and waste of funds; conflict of interest; travel
fraud; abuse of authority; theft or abuse of government property; and computer crime.
As a result of hotline complaints, the OIG may conduct audits and evaluations, as well as
investigations. In addition to being responsible for the EPA hotline, we are responsible
for the CSB hotline. Details on audit and evaluation reports issued during the semiannual
reporting period, as well as investigations, follow.
Audit and Evaluation Reports on EPA
No Intent to Underestimate Costs Was Found, but Supporting Documentation
for EPA's Final Rule Limiting Sulfur in Gasoline Was Incomplete or Inaccurate in
Several Instances
Report No. 16-P-0122, issued March 29, 2016
Operable refinery locations and capacity volumes
asof January 1. 2012
We found no evidence to substantiate hotline allegations that the EPA purposely
underestimated costs to petroleum refineries or intentionally misrepresented information in
public rulemaking documents
regarding new sulfur content
standards for gasoline. The Tier 3
Motor Emission and Fuel Standards
rule requires new emission limits
for motor vehicles, as well as
reduced limits on the amount of
sulfur in gasoline. Although we did
not find the allegations of
underestimating to be substantiated,
we did identify several instances
where descriptions of certain
aspects of the EPA's cost modeling
analyses were inaccurate or
incomplete in the final regulatory
impact analysis. This inaccurate
and incomplete documentation did
not impact the EPA's estimate of
costs to the refining industry.
oil refinery capacity
thousand barrels per day
£ 250 and above
• 110to250
• 50to110
• less than 50
\
Geographic location and capacity of U.S. refineries grouped by geographic
regions called Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDS).
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
26
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Nonetheless, inaccurate or incomplete documentation could prevent a third party from
obtaining a full and accurate understanding of how the EPA arrived at its cost estimate for
the Tier 3 rule. We made a recommendation for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation to
improve quality assurance review of future regulatory impact analysis documents, and the
agency agreed with our recommendation.
Awards Made by EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer Raise Questions
Report No. 16-P-0048, issued November 30, 2015
The EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer did not pay an alleged $250,000 bonus
to the newly hired Director of the Research Triangle Park Finance Center in North
Carolina because it was unable to provide relocation expenses. However, the office's
unprecedented award of $9,000 in bonuses to that Director less than 3 months after hire
raises questions about the reasonableness of the awards and how the office uses the
awards process. One award of $4,500 came just 6 weeks after the Director's start date,
and another $4,500 award came 6 weeks later. The office had considered a third award
for the Director but did not process it because of the OIG review. We recommended that
the EPA Deputy Administrator revisit the awards reviewed and take corrective actions if
necessary, and take certain actions to prevent such awards in the future. The agency
concurred with our recommendations.
Management of Overtime Improved at EPA's Office of Air and Radiation
Immediate Office
Report No. 16-P-0111, issued March 24, 2016
Allegations regarding misuse of overtime by an employee in the Office of Air and
Radiation's Immediate Office were unsubstantiated. However, the employee may have
incurred unnecessary overtime costs as a result of pre-signed Requests for Overtime
Authorization Forms by the employee and approver. The employee recorded 262 hours of
overtime, representing about $12,948, over an approximately 2-year period. The agency
indicated that, since August 2015, no overtime had been reported for the employee. The
allegation that the employee inappropriately used administrative leave to attend a funeral
was valid; the employee and agency agreed, and the administrative leave charges were
removed and replaced with sick leave.
Audit and Evaluation Reports on CSB
CSB Did Not Follow Federal Guidance While Managing the Vantage Contract
Report No. 16-P-0112, issued March 24, 2016
A hotline complaint from the former CSB Chairperson alleged the possible misuse of
contractor resources and federal funds in relation to a $125,000 contract with Vantage
27
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Human Resource Services Inc. Our review determined that the original contracting
officer's representative and his advisor did not violate Federal Acquisition Regulation
requirements regarding misuse of contractor resources or federal funds, as alleged, nor
did Vantage misrepresent the delivered work product. However, we determined that the
board's Managing Director acted inappropriately in approving a request for an advisor
without the contracting officer's knowledge, instructing a subcontractor to change a
contract deliverable, and removing the contracting officer's representative from the
contract. In addition, the original contracting officer's representative did not, in line with
requirements, provide critical information so that the contracting officer could exercise
adequate oversight. The board accepted OIG recommendations to require training and
update a board order to address the roles and responsibilities of acquisition professionals.
Significant Investigations on EPA
California Man Debarred for False Statements
On February 25, 2016, the EPA Suspension and Debarment Official debarred a San
Diego, California, man and two companies owned by him from participation in federal
procurement and non-procurement programs until February 24, 2021. The man had
previously been sentenced to 6 months of monitored home detention, a $23,426 fine,
5 years of probation and 100 hours of community service for submitting false documents
to the EPA while contesting his suspension and proposed debarment. This investigation
was initiated by the OIG after it was alleged that the man may have submitted false
statements to EPA Suspension and Debarment personnel in an attempt to influence a
decision to suspend and debar him from receiving federal contracts and grants. The
suspension and proposed debarment action was taken following the EPA Criminal
Investigation Division's investigation that led to the man's conviction in federal court in
2012 for the unlawful storage of hazardous waste.
EPA Employee Removed From Service for Threatening Comments
An EPA GS-13 employee in Kansas City, Kansas, agreed to end government service on
October 31, 2015, after allegedly making a comment in the workplace that was deemed a
threat by a fellow employee. Witness interviews were conducted, and it was learned that
there had been documented complaints against this employee in the past. The
investigation substantiated that threatening comments were made by the
employee. A final Report of Investigation was submitted to EPA officials, and on
August 25, 2015, a Notice of Proposed Removal was presented to the employee.
28
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
EPA Employee Resigns After Not Disclosing Outside Employment
On February 4, 2016, an EPA GS-15 employee resigned after allegations regarding
non-disclosed outside employment were substantiated. The former employee was
working for a nonprofit organization while working at the EPA and failed to include this
employment information on the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report from 2009 to
2014.
EPA Employee Receives 3-Day Suspension
On March 3, 2016, an EPA Region 4 employee received a 3-day suspension for creating
an appearance of impartiality and violating the standards of ethical conduct for an
employee of the executive branch. The ethics violations were related to the employee's
personal relationship with an environmental consulting company employee and providing
preferential treatment to the company as a result of that relationship.
Hotline Statistics
The following table shows OIG hotline activity regarding complaints of fraud, waste and
abuse in EPA and CSB programs and operations during the semiannual reporting period
ending March 31, 2016.
Semiannual period
(October 1,2015-
March31,2016)
Cases/referrals open at the beginning of the period
Cases/referrals received during the period
Cases/referrals closed during the period
Cases/referrals pending at the end of the period
183
141
123
201
Cases/referrals referred to others
OIG offices
EPA program offices
Other federal agencies
State/local agencies/other
101
28
5
7
Contacts to the EPA OIG Hotline
(telephone, voice mail, email, correspondence)
and hotline web page views)
4,607
The chart below breaks out by category inquiries received by the hotline that are retained
by the OIG and reviewed for a possible investigation, audit or evaluation.
29
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
The hotline makes it easy to report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or
misconduct in the programs and operations of the EPA and CSB. Employees, as well as
contractors, grantees, program participants and members of the general public may report
allegations via the following options.
Phone: (888) 546-8740
Fax: (202) 566-2599
Mail: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
Email: OIG Hotline@.epa.qov
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and other laws protect those who make
hotline complaints. For example, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012
provides protection to employees who disclose misconduct or misuse of government
resources. Individuals who contact the hotline are not required to identify themselves and
may request confidentiality. However, the OIG encourages those who report allegations
to identify themselves so that they can be contacted if the OIG has additional questions.
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Inspector General Act, the OIG will not disclose the identity
of an employee of the EPA or CSB who provides information unless that employee
consents or the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during
the course of an investigation, audit or evaluation. As a matter of policy, the OIG will
provide comparable protection to employees of contractors, grantees and others who
provide information to the OIG and request confidentiality. Individuals who are
concerned about the confidentiality or anonymity of electronic communication may
submit allegations by telephone or U.S. mail.
30
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Other Activities
Quality Control Review of EPA OIG Reports Issued in Fiscal Year 2014
Report No. 16-N-0029, issued November 4, 2015
The OIG's quality control review of its audit and evaluation reports issued in FY 2014
found that the OIG continued to make improvements regarding Planning and Execution,
Field Work, Evidence and Supervision. Nonetheless, we noted areas where
improvements should be made. Some workpapers continued to be unnecessarily lengthy,
assignment guides needed approval before kickoff, and revision of milestone dates for
assignments must be documented. Further, some teams continued to use their own
measures to define the scope of work instead of the methods identified by OIG guidance.
Also, updating indexes in reports to identify up-to-date/current information is needed.
We made various suggestions for management to reinforce OIG guidance with staff.
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, memorandums, executive orders, program
operations manuals, 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 25 proposed changes to legislation, regulations,
policy, procedures or other documents that could affect the EPA or the Inspector General.
Office of Special Counsel Whistleblower Certification Being Sought by EPA
In the previous Semiannual Report to the Congress, we noted that the U.S. Office of
Special Counsel maintains a program that certifies a federal agency's compliance with
training and awareness provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act. We noted that the
agency, not the OIG, must take the steps outlined to receive the Office of Special Counsel
certification. During this semiannual reporting period, the EPA worked with the OIG to
understand the requirements for certification and initiate the steps toward obtaining it.
31
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Other Results of OIG Work
Follow-Up Important Aspect of OIG Efforts
For audit and evaluation efforts to be effective, it is important for an OIG to follow up on
certain previously issued reports to ensure that appropriate and effective corrective
actions have been taken. For the following 10 audit and evaluation reports issued during
the semiannual reporting period ending March 31, 2016, our review included follow-up
on prior audits and evaluations.
Report No.
16-P-0006
16-P-0036
16-P-0039
16-F-0040
16-F-0041
16-P-0086
16-P-0100
16-P-0101
16-P-0107
16-P-0109
Report Title
EPA Needs to Improve Security Planning and
Remediation of Identified Weaknesses in Systems
Used to Protect Human Health and the Environment
Administrative Leave Decisions for EPA Employee
Disciplinary Actions Should Be Better Documented,
and Parameters on Use of Such Leave Should Be
Established
Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Information Security
Modernization Act Report: Status of EPA's Information
Security Program
Audit of EPA's Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014
Consolidated Financial Statements
Audit of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board's Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014
Financial Statements
Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Information Security
Modernization Act Report: Status of CSB's Information
Security Program
EPA Needs to Improve Its Information Technology
Audit Follow-Up Processes
Follow-Up Report: EPA Has Developed Measures to
Improve Training for Risk Management Program
Inspectors
Positioning EPA for the Digital Age Requires
New Mindsets Toward Printing
CSB Complied With Improper Payment Legislation
Requirements for Fiscal Year 2015
Date
October 14, 2015
November 9, 2015
November 16, 2015
November 16, 2015
November 16, 2015
January 27, 2016
March 10, 2016
March 10, 2016
March 21, 2016
March 23, 2016
32
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Single Audit Reporting Efforts Make Impact
In accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of Management and Budget
guidance, nonfederal entities that expend more than $750,000 in federal funds (usually in the
form of grants) are required to have a comprehensive annual audit of their financial
statements and compliance with major federal program requirements. The entities receiving
the funds include states, local governments, tribes and not-for-profit organizations. The act
provides that grantees are subject to one annual comprehensive audit of all their federal
programs versus a separate audit of each federal program, hence the term "single audit." The
audits are usually performed by private firms. Federal agencies rely upon the results of
single audit reporting when performing their grants management oversight of these entities.
The OIG provides an important customer service to the EPA by performing technical
reviews of these reports, and issues reports to the EPA for audit resolution and corrective
action. These reports recommend that the EPA action officials confirm that the corrective
actions have been taken. If the corrective actions have not been implemented, the EPA
needs to obtain a corrective action plan, with milestone dates, for addressing the findings
in a single report. For example:
• A single audit of a county in Montana showed that the county did not prepare and
submit grant status reports to the EPA timely. A similar finding was noted in the
prior year's single audit report.
• A single audit of a state environmental agency discovered the state agency did not
comply with the required process for funding administrative costs. The state
agency also did not report financial status for two open grants for the drinking and
clean water programs.
Summary of OIG single audit activity for semiannual period ending March 31, 2016
No. of
reports
issued
96
No. of reports
with no
further action
685
No. of findings
reported to
EPA
214
Reported
questioned
costs
$22k
Quality review
of single audit
reports
11
Deficiency
letters issued to
single auditors
5
Source: OIG analysis.
The OIG also provides technical assistance and advice to the EPA, single auditors and
others as they relate to the single audit process. For example, the EPA OIG National Single
Audit Coordinator was invited to present at the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants' National Training for Government and Non-Profit Entities. The coordinator
presented information on common single audit challenges that EPA grantees face, and
fielded technical questions from single auditors and grant recipients.
33
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Actions Taken on Reports Result in Improvements
The EPA has taken a number of corrective actions based on audit and evaluation reports
issued during the current and prior semiannual reporting periods. Examples follow.
Report No. 14-P-0171, EPA Needs to Continue to Improve Controls for Improper
Payment Identification, issued April 10, 2014. The EPA took substantial corrective
actions to identify improper payments and track the recovery of overpayments.
We identified fewer misstatements in the EPA's agency financial report in FY 2015
compared to prior years. The EPA's implementation of our previous recommendations
contributed to more accurate identification of improper payments and improved tracking
of the recovery of overpayments, assuring millions of dollars are expended for proper
purposes.
Report No. 15-P-0033, EPA Needs Better Management of Personal Property in
Warehouses, issued December 8, 2014. The agency issued and implemented policy
guidance requiring EPA Senior Resource Officials to conduct periodic unannounced
visits to warehouses to guard against unauthorized use of government resources. The
agency developed and disseminated best practices for inventory and storage to warehouse
managers at various locations, and to all property management officers. The EPA
conducted biannual training for custodial officers on best practices in accounting for
property and disposing of excess property.
Report No. 16-P-0019, EPA Needs Policies and Procedures to Manage Public
Pesticides in a Transparent and Efficient Manner, issued October 27, 2015.
In response to our recommendations, the EPA developed policies and standard operating
procedures to manage public petitions received by the Office of Pesticide Programs in a
transparent and efficient manner. These procedures include direct communication with
petitioners by providing a letter to the petitioner acknowledging receipt of the petition,
communicating petition decisions to the petitioner in writing, and providing updates to
petitioners about the status and progress of pending petitions.
Report No. 16-P-0082, EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: Obtainable Records
Show EPA Followed EPA's Required Procedures Without Bias or Predetermination,
but a Possible Misuse of Position Noted, issued January 13, 2016. Region 10's
Regional Administrator issued a memo to all Region 10 staff on January 21, 2016,
emphasizing that personnel are to follow the Standards of Ethical Conduct of Employees
of the Executive Branch. The memo listed all 14 principles, and the Regional
Administrator noted that staff cannot allow personal interests to affect their impartiality
in carrying out their official duties. Staff were encouraged to consult ethics attorneys if
they have questions.
34
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Agency Best Practices Noted
During the semiannual reporting period, several reports that we issued highlighted agency
"best practices" of value to other components in the agency. Examples follow.
• The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance convened a national
workgroup, with representatives from all 10 EPA regions and the Office of
Water, to characterize the barriers that have kept some public water systems from
returning to compliance. The workgroup is considering goals for: defining
"intractable" systems and identifying their significant barriers to compliance;
highlighting gaps in legal authority, policies or other impediments; understanding
what tools and options are available; and exploring options for a searchable data
base. (Report No. 16-P-0108)
• The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality stays informed about drinking
water system violations that pose a risk to human health because state-contracted
samplers collect all chemical drinking water samples across the state. The
commission receives sampling results regardless of whether the system has paid
lab analysis bills. The commission funds this program, in part, through an EPA
Public Water System Supervision grant. (Report No. 16-P-0108)
• The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has internal controls to manage its
petitions and prioritize transparency and efficiency. The office sends letters
acknowledging receipt of a petition, directly communicates the petition decision
to the petitioner, and announces the decision in the Federal Register. The office
also tracks petitions. (Report No. 16-P-0019)
• The agency developed a new audit tracking training guide to show how to use the
Management Audit Tracking System application and comply with agency audit
management policies. Additionally, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer was
in the process of developing system training, including online training.
(Report No. 16-P-0100)
35
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Statistical Data
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit and evaluation operations
OIG reviews
October 1,2015-
March 31, 2016
($ in millions)
Questioned costs *
Recommended efficiencies *
Costs disallowed to be recovered
Costs disallowed as cost efficiency
Reports issued by OIG
Reports resolved
(Agreement by agency officials
to take satisfactory corrective actions) **
$0.00
$0.19
$0.36
$0.00
28
108
Audit and evaluation operations
Reviews performed by Single Audit Act auditors
October 1,2015-
March 31, 2016
($ in millions)
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) ***
$0.02
$0.00
$0.04
$0.00
96
$0.70
Investigative operations
($ in millions)
October 1,201 5 -
March 31, 201 6
Total fines and recoveries
Cost savings
Cost avoidances
Civil settlements
Cases open during period
Cases closed during period
Indictments/informations of persons
or companies
Convictions of persons or companies
Civil judgments/settlements/filings
EPA OIG
only
$0.044
$0.507
$0
$0.190
49
48
5
2
1
Joint
$0.183
$0
$0
$3.00
4
8
2
3
1
Total
$0.227
$0.507
$0
$3.190
53
56
7
5
2
Questioned costs and recommended efficiencies are subject to change pending further review in the audit resolution process.
Reports resolved are subject to change pending further review.
Information on recoveries from audit resolutions is provided by the EPA's Office of Financial Management and is unaudited.
36
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Audit, Inspection and Evaluation Report Resolution
Table 1: OIG-issued reports with questioned costs for semiannual period ending March 31, 2016
($ in thousands)
Report category
A. For which no management decision was made by
October 1,201 5**
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 31, 201 6
No. of
reports
27
1
28
10
3
7
10
Questioned
costs *
$16,612
22
16,634
7,369
2,797
4,572
9,264
Unsupported
costs
$13,694
22
13,716
4,572
0
0
3,143
Questioned costs include unsupported costs.
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs between this report and our previous
semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit, inspection and evaluation tracking system.
Table 2: Inspector General-issued reports with recommendations that funds be put to better use for
semiannual period ending March 31, 2016 ($ in thousands)
Report Category
A.
B.
For which no management decision was made by October 1, 2015 *
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
D.
Forwhich no management decision was made by March 31, 2016
No. of
reports
12
2
14
4
1
3
9
Dollar
Value
$85,767
217
85,984
20,396
19
20,379
65,586
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, 2016, 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
Single audits
Financial statement audits
Total
Total
43
9
13
5
70
Percentage
61
13
19
7
100
37
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary of investigative activity during reporting period
Cases open as of October 1 , 201 5 *
Cases opened during period
Cases closed during period
Cases pending as of March 31, 2016
237
53
56
234
* Adjusted from prior period.
Investigations pending by type as of March 31, 2016
Contract fraud
Grant fraud
Laboratory fraud
Employee integrity
Program integrity
Computer crimes
Threat
Retaliation
Other
Total
Superfund
8
0
3
3
1
0
1
0
1
17
Management
9
25
3
33
12
1
3
1
13
100
Split funded
10
12
2
53
4
5
11
2
7
106
Recovery Act
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
CSB
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
29
45
8
90
17
6
15
3
21
234
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
5
2
1
0
$190,025
0 months
0 months
0 months
6 months
0 hours
Joint*
2
3
1
0
$3,182,920
21 months
0 days
0 months
96 months
200 hours
Total
7
5
2
0
$3,372,945
21 months
0 days
0 months
102 months
200 hours
'With another federal agency.
Administrative actions
Suspensions
Debarments
Other administrative actions
Total
Administrative recoveries
Cost avoidance
EPA OIG only
1
1
26
28
$43,915
$507,269
Joint*
3
5
1
9
$0
$0
Total
4
6
27
37
$43,915
$507,269
*With another federal agency.
38
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
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
Federal
Report No.
Report
Date
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable Recommended
Costs Costs Costs Efficiencies
PERFORMANCE REPORTS
16-P-0006 EPA Needs to Improve Security Planning and Remediation of Identified Oct. 14, 2015
Weaknesses in Systems Used to Protect Human Health and the
Environment
16-P-0019 EPA Needs Policies and Procedures to Manage Public Pesticide
Petitions in a Transparent and Efficient Manner
16-P-0035 CSB Needs Better Security Controls to Protect Critical Data Stored on Its
Regional Servers
16-P-0036 Administrative Leave Decisions for EPA Employee Disciplinary Actions
Should Be Better Documented, and Parameters on Use of Such Leave
Should Be Established
16-P-0039 Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Information Security Modernization Act Report:
Status of EPAs Information Security Program
16-P-0048 Awards Made by EPAs Office of the Chief Financial Officer Raise
Questions
16-P-0059 EPA Is Documenting How It Addresses Time-Critical Public Health Risks
Under Its Superfund Authority
16-P-0078 EPAs Background Investigation Support Contracts and 0PM Billings
Need Better Oversight and Internal Controls
16-P-0079 EPA Can Strengthen Its Reviews of Small Particle Monitoring in Region 6
to Better Ensure Effectiveness of Air Monitoring Network
16-P-0081 EPAs Tracking and Reporting of Its Conference Costs Need
Improvement
16-P-0082 EPAs Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: Obtainable Records Show
EPA Followed Required Procedures Without Bias or Pre Determination,
But a Possible Misuse of Position Noted
16-P-0086 Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Information Security Modernization Act Report:
Status of CSB's Information Security Program
16-P-0100 EPA Needs to Improve Its Information Technology Audit Follow-Up
Processes
16-P-0101 Follow Up: EPA Has Developed Measures to Improve Training for
Risk Management Program Inspectors
16-P-0104 EPA Has Not Met Statutory Requirements for Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility Inspections, but Inspection
Rates Are High
16-P-0107 Positioning EPA for the Digital Age Requires New Mindsets Toward
Printing
16-P-0108 Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small
Community Water Systems Designated as Serious Violators Achieve
Compliance
16-P-0109 CSB Complied with Improper Payment Legislation Requirements for
Fiscal Year 2015
16-P-0111 Management of Overtime Improved at EPA's Immediate Office of Air and
Radiation
16-P-0112 CSB Did Not Follow Federal Guidance While Managing the Vantage
Contract
16-P-0122 No Intent to Underestimate Costs Was Found, but Supporting
Documentation for EPA's Final Rule Limiting Sulfur in Gasoline Was
Incomplete or Inaccurate in Several Instances
16-P-0124 EPAs Fiscal Year 2015 Purchase Card and Convenience Check Mar. 29, 2016
Program Assessed as Low Risk
Oct. 27, 2015
Nov. 05, 2015
Nov. 09, 2015
Nov. 16, 2015
Nov. 30, 2015
Dec. 09, 2015
Dec. 14, 2015
Dec. 17, 2015
Jan. 07, 2016
Jan. 13, 2016
Jan. 27, 2016
Mar. 10, 2016
Mar. 10, 2016
Mar. 11,2016
Mar. 21,2016
Mar. 22, 201 6
Mar. 23, 201 6
Mar. 24, 2016
Mar. 24, 2016
Mar. 29, 201 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188,000
0
6,916
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Questioned Costs
Federal
Report No.
16-P-0125
16-P-0126
Report
EPA Offices Are Aware of Science to Achieve Results Program, but
Challenges Remain in Measuring and Internally Communicating
Research Results That Advance the Agency's Mission
Management Alert: Significant Data Quality Deficiencies Impede EPA's
Ability to Ensure Companies Can Pay for Cleanups
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 24
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable Recommended
Date Costs Costs Costs Efficiencies
Mar. 30, 2016
Mar. 31,2016
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$194,916
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
16-S-0001
16-S-0002
16-S-0003
16-S-0004
16-S-0005
16-S-0007
16-S-0008
16-S-0009
16-S-0010
16-S-0011
16-S-0012
16-S-0013
16-S-0014
16-S-0015
16-S-0016
16-S-0017
16-S-0020
16-S-0021
16-S-0022
16-S-0023
16-S-0024
16-S-0025
16-S-0026
16-S-0027
16-S-0028
16-S-0030
16-S-0031
16-S-0032
16-S-0033
16-S-0034
16-S-0037
16-S-0038
16-S-0042
16-S-0043
16-S-0044
16-S-0045
16-S-0046
16-S-0047
16-S-0049
16-S-0050
16-S-0051
16-S-0052
16-S-0053
16-S-0054
16-S-0055
16-S-0056
16-S-0057
16-S-0058
16-S-0060
16-S-0061
16-S-0062
16-S-0063
16-S-0064
16-S-0065
16-S-0066
16-S-0067
Texas, State of- FY 201 4
South Carolina, State of- FY 2014
Puerto Rico Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund - FY 2014
Vermont, State of- FY 2014
Washington, State of- FY 2014
Togiak, Alaska, Traditional Council of- FY 2012
White Mountain, Alaska, Native Village of FY 2012
Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power-Water System, California - FY 2013
Shelton, Nebraska, Village of- FY 201 3
West Virginia, State of -FY 201 4
Oden Water Association, Idaho -FY 201 3
Nome Joint Utility System, Alaska - FY 2013
Altoona Water Authority, Pennsylvania - FY 201 3
Arcadia, Florida, City of- FY 2013
Missouri System, Missouri, University of- FY 2014
Turlock, California, City of- FY 2014
Winslow, Arizona, City of- FY 2014
Maui, Hawaii, County of- FY 2014
Ellsworth, Maine, City of- FY 2014
Livonia, Louisiana, Town of- FY 2013
Marlin, Texas, City of -FY 201 3
Alaska, State of- FY 201 4
Nondalton Tribal Council, Alaska -FY 2014
Colorado, State of- FY 201 4
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority - FY 201 4
Agriculture and Land Based Training Association, California - FY 2013
Elk Valley Rancheria, California, Governmental Departs, of- FY 2013
Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Battle Mountain Band Council,
Nevada -FY 201 3
Redwood Valley Little River Band of Porno Indians, California - FY 201 3
Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Foundation, Washington -
FY2013
Jourdanton, Texas, City of- FY 2013
Santa Nella County Water District, California - FY 2013
Nye County, Nevada - FY 2014
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, California - FY 201 3
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, Oregon - FY 2014
North Pole, Alaska, City of - FY 201 3
West Bonner Water & Sewer District, Idaho - FY 2013
Decision Science Research Institute, Inc., Oregon - FY 2013
Anaconda Deer Lodge County, Montana - FY 2014
Belle Fourche River Watershed Partnership, South Dakota - FY 2014
Box Elder, South Dakota, City of- FY 2012
New Hampshire, State of- FY 2014
New York, State of- FY 201 4
Park Rapids, Minnesota, City of- FY 2013
Perham, Minnesota, City of- FY 2013
Richmond, Minnesota, City of -FY 201 3
Maple Lake, Minnesota, City of- FY 2013
Stewart, Minnesota, City of - FY 201 3
Swanville, Minnesota, City of -FY 201 3
Wadena, Minnesota, City of- FY 2013
Warren, Minnesota, City of -FY 201 3
Oconto Falls, Wisconsin, City of- FY 201 3
Corp. for Conservation of San Juan Bay Estuary, Puerto Rico -FY 201 3
Bonham, Texas, City of- FY 2013
Corrales, New Mexico, Village of- FY 201 3
Lake Livingston Water Supply and Sewer Corporation, Texas - FY 2013
Oct. 06, 2015
Oct. 07, 201 5
Oct. 07, 201 5
Oct. 07, 2015
Oct. 07, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 13, 2015
Oct. 15, 2015
Oct. 19, 2015
Oct. 20, 2015
Oct. 20, 2015
Oct. 26, 2015
Oct. 26, 201 5
Oct. 26, 201 5
Oct. 26, 201 5
Oct. 26, 201 5
Oct. 26, 2015
Oct. 26, 2015
Oct. 27, 2015
Oct. 27, 2015
Nov. 03, 2015
Nov. 03, 2015
Nov. 03, 2015
Nov. 03, 2015
Nov. 03, 2015
Nov. 10, 2015
Nov. 10, 2015
Nov. 17, 2015
Nov. 17, 2015
Nov. 23, 201 5
Nov. 23, 201 5
Nov. 23, 2015
Nov. 23, 2015
Nov. 24, 2015
Nov. 24, 2015
Nov. 30, 2015
Nov. 30, 2015
Dec. 01,2015
Dec. 03, 201 5
Dec. 03, 2015
Dec. 03, 2015
Dec. 07, 2015
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 201 5
Dec. 08, 201 5
Dec. 08, 201 5
Dec. 08, 201 5
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 2015
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Questioned Costs
Report No.
16-S-0068
16-S-0069
16-S-0070
16-S-0071
16-S-0072
16-S-0073
16-S-0074
16-S-0075
16-S-0076
16-S-0077
16-S-0080
16-S-0083
16-S-0084
16-S-0085
16-S-0087
16-S-0088
16-S-0089
16-S-0090
16-S-0091
16-S-0092
16-S-0093
16-S-0094
16-S-0095
16-S-0096
16-S-0097
16-S-0098
16-S-0099
16-S-0110
16-S-0115
16-S-0116
16-S-0117
16-S-0118
16-S-0119
16-S-0120
16-S-0123
16-S-0128
16-S-0129
16-S-0130
16-S-0131
16-S-0132
Report
Bernalillo, New Mexico, Town of-FY 2013
Lone Chimney Water Association, Oklahoma - FY 2013
Longtown Rural Water District #1 , Oklahoma - FY 2013
Agua Special Utility District, Texas - FY 2013
Merrill, Wisconsin, City of-FY 2013
Kentucky, Commonwealth of-FY 2014
Mississippi, Stateof-FY 2014
Maine Municipal Bond Bank, Maine - FY 201 4
North Carolina, State of - FY 201 4
North Dakota, State of - FY 201 4
New Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico - FY 2014
Lake Station, Indiana, City of-FY 2013
Blue Island, Illinois, City of-FY 2014
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Council, Maine - FY 2013
Pennsboro, West Virginia, City of-FY 2013
Williamsburg Municipal Authority, Pennsylvania - FY 2013
Chicago Park District, Chicago, Illinois - FY 2014
Provincetown, Massachusetts, Town of-FY 2014
Gloucester, Massachusetts, City of-FY 2014
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture - FY 2014
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York - FY 2014
Michigan, State of-FY 201 4
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power-Water System, California -
FY2014
Winchester, Connecticut, Town of-FY 2014
Mahomet, Illinois, Village of-FY 2015
New Chicago, Indiana, Town of-FY 2013
Northern Mariana Islands, Commonwealth of - FY 201 4
Battelle Memorial Institute, Ohio - FY 2014
Oakland County, Michigan - FY 2014
Wayne, Michigan, Charter County of - FY 201 3
Cedar Lake, Indiana, Town of - FY 201 3
American Samoa Power Authority, American Samoa - FY 201 4
California Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - FY 201 4
Commonwealth Utilities Corporation, MP - FY 2014
Crow Tribe of Indians, Montana - FY 2013
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, California - FY 2015
Arctic Village Tribal Council, Alaska - FY 2014
North Pole, Alaska -FY 201 4
Copper River Native Association, Alaska - FY 2014
Huslia Tribal Council, Alaska - FY 2014
TOTAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS = 96
Federal
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable Recommended
Date Costs Costs Costs Efficiencies
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 2015
Dec. 08, 201 5
Dec. 08, 201 5
Dec. 09, 201 5
Dec. 09, 201 5
Dec. 09, 2015
Dec. 09, 2015
Dec. 09, 2015
Dec. 31,2015
Jan. 12, 2016
Jan. 19, 2016
Jan. 22, 2016
Jan. 25, 2016
Jan. 25, 2016
Jan. 27, 2016
Feb. 03, 2016
Feb. 03, 2016
Feb. 04, 2016
Feb. 08, 201 6
Feb. 08, 201 6
Feb. 08, 201 6
Feb. 09, 2016
Feb. 09, 2016
Feb. 09, 2016
Feb. 24, 2016
Mar. 23, 201 6
Mar. 23, 201 6
Mar. 25, 201 6
Mar. 25, 2016
Mar. 25, 2016
Mar. 25, 2016
Mar. 25, 2016
Mar. 28, 201 6
Mar. 30, 201 6
Mar. 30, 201 6
Mar. 30, 201 6
Mar. 30, 2016
Mar. 30, 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,208
0
0
0
$22,208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,208
0
0
0
$22,208
NON-AUDIT REPORTS
16-N-0018
16-N-0029
FY 2015 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Management Challenges
Quality Control Review of EPA Office of Inspector General Reports
Issued in Fiscal Year 2014
TOTAL NON-AUDIT REPORTS = 2
Oct. 22, 201 5
Nov. 04, 2015
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORTS
16-F-0040
16-F-0041
Audit of EPAs Fiscal Year 2015 and 201 4 Consolidated Financial
Statements
Audit of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's
Nov. 16, 2015
Nov. 16, 2015
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 Financial Statements
TOTAL FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORTS = 2
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 124
$22,208
$217,124
41
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Appendix 2—Reports Issued Without Management Decisions
For Reporting Period Ended March 31, 2016
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, 2016.
Report No. 12-1-0560, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, September 24, 2007
Summary: The tribe did not comply with the financial and program management standards under the Code of Federal
Regulations 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.
Agency Explanation: Region 8 discussed next steps with the OIG in June 2015, including the potential for a corrective
action plan and/or a regulatory waiver. Mutual agreement on final steps is still pending.
Region 9—Regional Administrator
Report No. 13-3-0159, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Nevada - FY 2010, February 19, 2013
Summary: The tribe did not file or maintain documentation of compliance for annual reports. Also, the required
SF 425 report did not cover the correct period. A similar finding was noted in the prior year audit report. The tribe
recorded deferred revenues in the amount of $804,104 and only $150,416 in available cash. The single auditor
questioned $653,688. A similar finding was noted in the prior year audit report. The tribe's operating practices did not
reflect the processes described in the approved policies and procedures manual. The tribe did not properly reconcile
its SF 425 report to the general ledger for certain awards and the single auditor questioned $20,556. The single
auditor also questioned $76,216 involving amounts paid to the General Assistance Program Director.
Agency Explanation: Region 9 is addressing five audits with Summit Lake—one agreed-upon procedures audit and
four single audits. Summit Lake appealed the agreed-upon procedures audit and the Regional Administrator
accepted the appeal on August 13, 2014. Debt Forgiveness Package was received from the tribe requesting that EPA
forgive the $74,418.70 owed as a result of the OIG's agreed-upon procedures review. As of March 31, 2016,
Region 9 is still waiting for the EPA Claim's Officer's decision on debt forgiveness.
Report No. 13-3-0160, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Nevada- FY2011, February 19, 2013
Summary: The tribe did not file the quarterly narratives for the General Assistance Program. Furthermore, the tribe
was unable to locate documentation for two quarterly SF 425 reports. There were no formalized controls regarding
the security of the payroll stamp. Also, the single auditor noted issues related to pay rates. A similar finding was noted
in the prior year audit report. Budgets prepared excluded the carry-forward amounts from prior periods. Several
transactions were not supported by a purchase order or other type of approval prior to the expenditure being made.
One transaction charged to travel in the amount of $2,877 did not appear to be valid and appropriate for the granting
requirements, and the single auditors questioned that amount.
Agency Explanation: Region 9 is addressing five audits with Summit Lake—one agreed-upon procedures audit and
four single audits. Summit Lake appealed the agreed-upon procedures audit and the Regional Administrator
accepted the appeal on August 13, 2014. Debt Forgiveness Package was received from the tribe requesting that EPA
forgive the $74,418.70 owed as a result of the OIG's agreed-upon procedures review. As of March 31, 2016,
Region 9 is still waiting for the EPA Claim's Officer's decision on debt forgiveness.
42
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report No. 15-3-0302, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, California - FY 2013, September 29, 2015
Summary: The single auditor reported five findings that pertain to EPA programs. We questioned $77,384 as
unsupported related to excessive cash draws under three EPA grants.
Agency Explanation: Management decision is pending due to a revised audit response from the grant recipient
concerning proposed changes to the corrective actions.
Report No. 15-3-0303, Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, California - FY 2013, September 28, 2015
Summary: The single auditor reported seven audit findings and questioned $14,296 in unsupported EPA grant
expenditures.
Agency Explanation: Management decision is pending due to a revised audit response from the grant recipient
concerning proposed changes to the corrective actions.
Total reports issued before reporting period for which
no management decision had been made as of March 31, 2016 = 5
43
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
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, we are to identify each
significant recommendation described in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed.
Several examples of why recommendations remained unimplemented follow:
• In a report addressing an unauthorized, full-time work-at-home arrangement, we recommended that the EPA establish and
implement agency policy for all of the EPA's employees, clearly articulating the process and procedures for changing an
employee's duty station to a location geographically separate from the position of record. This policy should include eligibility
criteria for positions and personnel, records management requirements, periodic review and reauthorization, verification of
correct pay rate (locality and grade), and specific approvals required from initial submission to final approval to ensure equity.
As of September 8, 2015, negotiations were concluded with one employee union and an agreement ratified, while negotiations
with another employee union are nearing completion. After telework agreements are in place with the unions, the EPA plans to
issue a new telework policy for non-bargaining unit employees. (Report No. 10-P-0002)
• In a report on the environmental benefits and impact of the EPA Superfund removal program and the agency's plan to achieve
future program goals, we recommended that the EPA synchronize data between Pollution Reports and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System. While synchronizing the data between these
systems seemed like a possible option to explore, subsequent system changes impacted the agency's ability to carry out the
recommendation. Since the report was issued, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System was retired and replaced with the Superfund Enterprise Management System. The new system has
ongoing software changes and fixes being implemented, and the concept of pulling data from a non-EPA website to populate
this system was found to be problematic, costly, duplicative and unnecessary. Removal data is currently being entered into the
Superfund Enterprise Management System, and the Office of Land and Emergency Management indicated it is working closely
with the regions to ensure the quality of the data. (Report No. 13-P-0176)
This appendix contains separate tables of unimplemented recommendations for the EPA and CSB. The tables are further divided by:
(1) recommendations with past due corrective actions and (2) recommendations with corrective actions that have a future completion
date. Many of the recommendations have completion dates in the future due to the complexity or challenging nature of the
recommendations.
Below is a listing of the responsible EPA offices that have recommendations included in the following tables. While a recommendation
may be listed as unimplemented, the agency may be on track to complete agreed-upon corrective actions by the planned due date.
A reason for delay is only shown for those recommendations that are past their original planned completion date. The information
regarding reason for delay was provided by the agency and was not verified by the OIG.
Responsible EPA Offices:
OA
OAR
OARM
OCFO
OCSPP
OECA
OGD
OEI
OLEM
OW
Region 2
Region 3
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Office of the Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Administration and Resources Management
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Grants and Debarment
Office of Environmental Information
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Office of Water
44
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
EPA Reports With Past Due Unimplemented Recommendations
Report Title/No.
Unused Earmark Funds for
Water Projects Totaling
$6.2 Million Could Be Put to
Better Use (15-P-0299)
EPA Needs to Improve the
Recognition and
Administration of Cloud
Services for the Office of
Water's Permit Management
Oversight System
(15-P-0295)
EPA Needs to Track Whether
Its Major Municipal
Settlements for Combined
Sewer Overflows Benefit
Water Quality (15-P-0280)
EPA Can Increase Impact of
Environmental Justice on
Agency Rulemaking by
Meeting Commitments and
Measuring Adherence to
Guidance (15-P-0274)
Improvements Needed by
EPA to Reduce Risk in
Employee Hiring Process
(15-P-0253)
Report
Date
09/30/15
09/24/15
09/16/16
09/03/15
08/03/15
Office
OW
OEI
OECA
OA
OARM
Unimplemented Recommendation
2. Establish a method to identify at
least semiannually grants with no
financial activity for an extended period
of time and take action with the regions
to identify and help resolve the cause
for delay or identify the grant as a
no-progress grant.
1 . Appoint the National Computing
Center as the agency lead for
evaluating all information technology
hosting proposals to determine if the
hosting is cost beneficial and meets
federal requirements.
3. Develop and maintain an inventory of
cloud systems.
3. Develop an Annual Commitment
System goal that establishes regional
goals for monitoring and reporting
outcomes associated with combined
sewer overflow consent decrees, in
order to prioritize consent decree
tracking in regional offices.
1 . Implement a process to measure use
of the environmental justice guides in
the rulemaking process. This should
minimally include a certification state-
ment by a Director within the originating
office when the guides are used.
3. Develop and provide training on the
use of the EJ Technical Guidance upon
its final issuance.
1 . Review and revise EPA Human
Resource Bulletin Quality Assurance in
the Hiring Process, to enhance internal
controls for vetting prior employment,
verifying awards/professional
certifications and contacting references
by:
a. Establishing a requirement that an
applicant's prior employment,
awards/professional certifications
and references be verified.
b. Establishing a requirement that the
selecting official or delegated
authority document that they
verified prior employment,
awards/professional certifications
and references of prospective new
hires, or explain the reasons why
they did not verify. Retain
documentation in a permanent file
for the time period required in the
applicable EPA Record Schedule.
Planned
Completion
Date
03/31/16
12/31/15
03/31/16
02/28/16
12/31/15
03/31/16
09/30/15
Reason for Delay
The Close Out Strategy is currently in the
final review stage by upper management and
is expected to be signed and made available
by 5/27/1 6.
Delays in receiving tracking information from
DIG into agency audit tracking system
caused delays in implementation. Expected
completion date revised to 6/30/1 6 for
Recommendation 1 and 9/30/16 for
Recommendation 3.
OECA requires additional time to complete
this action. Expected completion date is
8/26/16.
OA is meeting with the Administrator to
discuss and finalize the guidance by
May 2016 and training by June 2016.
The revised bulletin is drafted and in the
review stage. Additional time is needed to
reconcile comments and conduct the final
review including legal review. We will
complete this corrective action by 6/30/1 6.
45
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Internal Controls Needed to
Control Costs of Superfund
Technical Assessment &
Response Team Contracts,
as Exemplified in Region 7
(15-P-0215)
Report
Date
07/20/15
Office
Region 7
Unimplemented Recommendation
2. Require the Project Officer to notify
the contractor regarding the required
schedules and ensure that all are
received with the contractor's invoices.
3. Require the Project Officer to notify
the contractor of the required monthly
progress report elements, and ensure
that the contractor begins submitting all
required elements.
4. Require the Contracting Office to
recover the $1 ,320 related to the
double-billing of Tyvex suits, gloves
and air cartridges, and review all other
billings on the contract to identify other
double-billings and recover any
identified costs.
5. Require the Contracting Officer to
require the contractor to begin billing
Subcontractor C immediately as a
subcontractor, consistent with how the
costs were proposed and the definition
of a subcontractor per the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
6. Require the Contracting Officer to
recover the $2,236 of unallowable
General and Administrative costs
related to Subcontractor C and review
all billings from November 2014 to the
present and recover any additional
General and Administrative billed to the
government.
7. Ensure that the two contractor
employees who do not meet the
contract qualifications no longer work
on the Superfund Technical
Assessment & Response Team
contract in positions they are not
qualified for.
8. Require the Project Officer to review
the qualifications of all personnel who
have been billed on the contract to
ensure they meet contract
qualifications, and report any who do
not meet the qualifications to the
Contracting Officer.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/15
12/31/15
12/31/15
09/30/15
12/31/15
09/30/15
12/31/15
Reason for Delay
Region 7 has received notification that
corrective actions have been completed, but
is awaiting receipt of documentation
confirming all corrective actions have been
fully implemented before they can be closed
out.
46
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Report
Date
Office
Region 7
Unimplemented Recommendation
9. Require the Contracting Officer to
recover the $73,971 of billed costs
associated with the unqualified
employees as of February 4, 2014, as
well as any amounts billed for these
employees after that date. The
Contracting Officer should also recover
any costs associated with unqualified
personnel identified by the Project
Officer in implementing
Recommendation 8.
10. Provide training to the Project
Officer and Task Order Project Officers
on the EPA's Invoice Reviews
Approval Desk Guide.
12. Ensure that Region 7 staff receive
and review the staffing plan from the
contractor in accordance with the
contract.
13. Require the Contracting Officer to
recover $4,795 related to staffing plans
paid for but not received in year one of
the contract.
14. Calculate the costs paid out for
staffing plans that were not received for
year two and recover that amount.
15. Conduct training on the proper
procedures for performing annual
invoice reviews.
16. Require the Contracting Officer for
the Region 7 Superfund Technical
Assessment & Response Team
contract to perform quarterly invoice
reviews as recommended in the EPA
Acquisition Guide and the Invoice
Review & Approval Desk Guide.
17. Perform a review of all contracts
administered by Region 7, evaluate the
risks associated with them, and
implement quarterly Contracting Officer
invoice reviews of contracts deemed to
be of a higher risk.
18. Develop and implement a
management internal control to ensure
Contracting Officer invoice reviews are
being conducted.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/15
09/30/15
12/31/15
12/31/15
12/31/15
09/30/15
12/31/15
12/31/15
12/31/15
Reason for Delay
47
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Enhanced EPA Oversight
and Action Can Further
Protect Water Resources
From the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing
(15-P-0204)
Benefits of EPA Initiative to
Promote Renewable Energy
on Contaminated Lands
Have Not Been Established
(15-P-0198)
Improvements Needed to
Ensure EPA Terminates
Exceptions to Biweekly Pay
Limits at Completion of
Emergency Response Work
(15-P-0170)
Report
Date
07/16/15
07/16/15
06/19/15
Office
OCSPP
OLEM
OA
Unimplemented Recommendation
20. Develop a tracking system to
ensure that the Contracting Officer
distributes the indirect rate agreement
to the Project Officer and that the
contractor's adjustment vouchers are
received timely.
21 . Notify all Region 7 Project Officers
of adjustment voucher policies and
procedures, emphasizing the Project
Officer's responsibility in the process.
26. Require the Contracting Officer to
review the contract and include all
missing information, eliminate repetitive
clauses and make corrections to
inaccurate clauses.
3. Establish and publish an action plan
with milestone dates that outlines the
steps necessary for determining
whether to propose a rule to obtain
information on chemical substances
and mixtures used in hydraulic
fracturing.
1 . Determine whether benefits from its
investment of program resources in
renewable energy promotion, education
and outreach efforts outlined in the
Management Plan demonstrate the
value of the RE-Powering America's
Land Initiative. If benefits cannot be
demonstrated for the initiative, the EPA
should modify or terminate the
program.
3. If the EPA chooses to continue with
the initiative in its current or modified
form, use available data from sites that
have had renewable energy
development and are under EPA
oversight to track and publicly report on
economic and environmental benefits
realized at sites.
2. Recover the $4,141 paid to EPA
employees in excess of the biweekly
pay limit.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/15
09/30/15
06/30/15
01/31/16
03/31/16
03/31/16
09/30/15
Reason for Delay
In May 2014, the EPA issued an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to seek
public and stakeholder input on how to best
obtain information on chemicals and
mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. While
OCSPP is making progress in evaluating
these public comments, the agency has not
yet completed its assessment of the data
collected in order to determine appropriate
next steps and our future plan of action. The
agency's revised completion date is 7/31/16.
For Recommendations 2 and 4, additional
time is needed to allow OLEM the
opportunity to complete the enhanced web
area on benefits on the RE-Power web site
and updated tracking matrix. Additionally,
OLEM will release a report with a more
detailed benefits matrix by 5/31/16.
The recovery of the overpayment was
recommended in a memo from OARM
Human Resources Acting Director to
Director of OCFO's Office of Financial
Services. OA is awaiting confirmation that
the recovery of overpayment has occurred.
48
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Improved Oversight of EPA's
Grant Monitoring Program
Will Decrease the Risk of
Improper Payments
(15-P-0166)
Conditions in the U.S. Virgin
Islands Warrant EPA
Withdrawing Approval and
Taking Over Management of
Some Environmental
Programs and Improving
Oversight of Others
(15-P-0137)
EPA Can Better Assure
Continued Operations at
National Computer Center
Through Complete and Up-
to-Date Documentation for
Contingency Planning
(15-P-0136)
Audit of EPA's Fiscal Years
2014 and 2013 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial
Statements (15-1 -0021)
Report
Date
6/11/15
4/17/15
4/9/15
11/17/14
Office
OGD
Region 2
OLEM
OCFO
Unimplemented Recommendation
3. Follow up on undocumented costs
identified in the DIG finding and require
grant recipients to reimburse the
agency for costs deemed unallowable
based on insufficient and/or
unacceptable source documentation.
1 To correct problems with the
implementation of the Clean Water Act,
request the EPA Administrator to begin
the process of withdrawing the U.S.
Virgin Islands Clean Water Act program
authorization by ordering a hearing
under 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) §123.64 and describing the
Clean Water Act program deficiencies
in the hearing order.
4. Develop and implement a
contingency plan for the Emergency
Management Portal system that
identifies system-specific recovery
strategies.
5. Improve and maintain support for
how EPA lab renovation projects are
funded.
6. Review funding sources of all current
and future lab renovations to ensure
correct funding is utilized.
7. Develop policies and procedures for
capital improvements/betterments to
real property, specifically, to address
EPA lab renovations which could
include bulk purchases of equipment
and funding from agency program
appropriations other than the Building
and Facilities appropriation.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/15
3/31/16
12/31/15
03/31/16
03/31/16
03/31/16
Reason for Delay
Due to resource constraints and an inability
of recipients to respond to EPA requests for
documentation in a timely manner, OGD was
unable to meet the planned completion
deadline. OGD expects to make a
determination regarding the remaining
unresolved questioned costs by 4/30/16.
OGD has resolved all questioned costs for
three of the seven administrative advanced
monitoring reviews/recipients listed in
Table 3 of the final DIG audit report and
continues to work with the regional Grant
Management Offices to resolve findings for
the four remaining unresolved advanced
monitoring reviews. Once the Grant
Management Offices have reviewed all of
the additional supporting documentation
submitted by each recipient and made a
determination of whether there were any
improper payments (unallowed costs), OGD
will ensure that the Compliance Database is
properly updated and the Las Vegas
Finance Center is notified.
Region 2 has completed the approximately
1 year of implementing the Enhanced
Oversight process for Territorial Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permitting and
enforcement actions. Region 2 is preparing a
comprehensive status report for this effort,
but has encountered scheduling delays.
Region 2 expects to issue this report by
5/31/16.
The Office of Emergency Management's
Emergency Management Portal is in the
middle of receiving contracted Security
Services, i.e., creation of contingency plan
and risk assessment. The new projected
completion date for completing the
Emergency Management Portal Contingency
Plan is 6/30/1 6.
Planned completion dates for corrective
actions to Recommendations 5-7 have been
extended to 5/31/16. Office of Financial
Management is evaluating policy priorities
and plans to issue a policy bulletin to
address these issues.
49
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA Needs to Improve Its
Process for Accurately
Designating Land as Clean
and Protective for Reuse
(14-P-0364)
Report
Date
09/24/14
Office
OLEM
Unimplemented Recommendation
12. Research and resolve differences
between Compass and the property
management system timely.
14. Require project officers to approve
federal disbursements timely.
3. Stipulate the following in the grant
agreements for each program:
a. For Brownfields, require grantees
to track the status and type of reuse
of remediated sites and report that
information to OLEM.
b. For Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Corrective Action,
whenever there is a change in site
conditions or site use, require states
to revise the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Corrective Action
determination form to reflect the
changes and have states re-submit
the form to OLEM.
c. For Underground Storage Tanks,
require states to submit to OLEM
and make publicly available site-
specific information, including site
name.
5. Appropriately qualify the validity,
uses and reliability of the Cross-
Program Revitalization Measures data
reporting in OLEM's publicly available
information systems.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/15
03/31/15
09/30/15
09/30/15
Reason for Delay
OCFO has resolved $50 million of the
differences between Compass and Maximo
as required by the Resource Management
Directive System. The differences were
partially due to data conversion from the
Integrated Financial Management System to
Compass. The remaining differences are
between the Fixed Assets Subsystem and
General Ledger and is due to software
overhead vouchers. Reporting and Analysis
Staff will continue to clear the differences.
New anticipated completion date is 6/30/16.
The revision of the Interagency Agreement
Manual is a collaborative effort between
OGD, Region 10 and the Office of General
Counsel. The two Interagency Shared
Service Centers are working on the
Interagency Agreement manual revision, led
by the Director, East - Interagency Shared
Service Center. This project is an OGD
priority. The project is on track to be
completed by 10/1 5/1 6.
For Recommendations 3 and 5, the OLEM is
continuing to work with the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials to finalize the
clarifying language document for review by
the states. The estimated completion date is
6/30/16.
50
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
More Action is Needed to
Protect Water Resources
from Unmonitored Hazardous
Chemicals (14-P-0363)
Report
Date
09/29/14
Office
OW
Unimplemented Recommendation
1 . Develop, in coordination with OEI, a
usable format for sharing Toxics
Release Inventory data on discharges
sent to sewage treatment plants, with
OW developing materials to explain the
utility of Toxics Release Inventory data
to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit writers and
pretreatment program personnel. This
will include exploring options for an
online search tool to more easily
identify Toxics Release Inventory
discharges to specific sewage
treatment plants.
2. Develop, in coordination with EPA
regions, a list of chemicals beyond the
priority pollutants appropriate for
inclusion among the chemicals subject
to discharge permits. This may include:
a. Review of Toxics Release
Inventory-reported discharges to
sewage treatment plants. Initial
review could focus on Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
hazardous chemicals reported in the
Toxics Release Inventory.
b. Review of chemicals monitored
nationwide in sewage treatment
plant discharge permits, especially
chemicals monitored by Region 9.
c. Review of chemical monitoring
data already collected by sewage
treatment plants but not included in
discharge permits.
d. Discussion with the Office of
Resource Conservation and
Recovery for suggested hazardous
chemicals.
e. Development of mechanisms that
ensure discharge and pretreatment
programs coordinate during
discharge permit writing.
3. Confirm, in coordination with OECA
and EPA regions, that sewage
treatment plants and their industrial
users are aware of and comply with the
40 CFR 403.1 2(p) requirement that
industrial users submit hazardous
waste notifications.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/15
09/30/15
09/30/15
Reason for Delay
The OW, OECA and OEI are working to
develop an electronic tool that will make the
data on discharges to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works reported under Toxics
Release Inventory easily available to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works, states, EPA and
the general public. The new electronic tools
will be a part of the Discharge Monitoring
Report Pollutant Loading Tool, a tool used to
easily access data submitted from National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Discharge Monitoring Reports and Toxic
Release Inventory as part of Clean Water
Act monitoring activities. The OECA, the
lead for the Integrated Compliance
Information System-National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System has
developed a working beta version of the tool
that will be tested with the regions and then
improved based on testing feedback. This
testing is important to have a tool that is
actually useful to the local, state and federal
regulators. This tool is expected to be
completed and ready for launch by 7/31/16.
The OW is also updating training materials
for Whole Effluent Toxicity to satisfy
Recommendation 4a. These will be available
by 7/31/1 6.
51
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA Needs to Work With
States to Develop Strategies
for Monitoring the Impact of
State Activities (14-P-0348)
Cloud Oversight Resulted in
Unsubstantiated and Missed
Opportunities for Savings,
Unused and Undelivered
Services, and Incomplete
Policies (14-P-0332)
Report
Date
09/03/14
08/15/14
Office
OW
OEI
Unimplemented Recommendation
4. Develop, in coordination with OECA,
mechanisms to:
a. Improve sewage treatment plant
compliance with permit terms that
require submission of Whole
Effluent Toxicity monitoring results
to the permitting authority.
b. Facilitate the use of monitoring
data to track facilities that have
violated chemical or Whole Effluent
Toxicity permit exceedance
requirements.
1 . Work with state and federal Task
Force members in the Mississippi River
Watershed to develop and enhance
monitoring and assessment systems
that will track the environmental results
of state nutrient reduction activities,
including their contribution to reducing
the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic
zone.
1 1 . Publish detailed instructions for
agency programs to use when
considering moving applications to the
cloud that fully addresses federal
guidance, including but not limited to
such areas as:
a. Assessing and classifying
applications for cloud migration.
b. Creating cloud migration
roadmaps.
c. Performing a documented
analysis to determine whether a
secure, reliable and cost-effective
cloud option exists for all new
applications.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/15
06/30/15
03/31/16
Reason for Delay
The completion of the corrective action is
delayed until 12/31/16. The Nonpoint Source
Measures Workgroup has continued to make
progress reviewing and discussing available
and achievable common measures that all
Hypoxia Task Force states can use to track
progress. EPA has assembled information
on the conservation practices funded by the
agency's 319 nonpoint source control grant
program and made this available to states.
States have compiled data on state-funded
practices. The workgroup is now working to
identify potential sources of private
conservation investments and is anticipating
that United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) National Resource
Conservation Service will release a national
data sharing policy to describe a process for
states to access USDA conservation practice
implementation information. Based on a
preliminary data analysis and with
anticipation of the USDA's forthcoming
national data sharing policy, the Workgroup
expects that a Nonpoint Source Measures
Report can be completed this calendar year.
The Task Force will continue working to
include information on privately funded
conservation investment in future reports on
nonpoint source progress.
The corrective action has been extended to
09/30/16 to complete the update to the
System Life Cycle Management. Because of
the passing of Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act
legislation in December 2015, the direction
for the System Life Cycle Management has
changed, which has caused a delay in the
updates to it. Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act
legislation has provided stronger
opportunities for the Chief Information Officer
to make decisions on cloud hosting/migration
options.
52
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Unliquidated Obligations
Resulted in Missed
Opportunities to Improve
Drinking Water Infrastructure
(14-P-0318)
EPA Has Made Progress in
Assessing Historical Lead
Smelter Sites but Needs to
Strengthen Procedures
(14-P-0302)
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Needs to Meet Cooperative
Agreement Objectives and
Davis-Bacon Act
Requirements to Fully
Achieve Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
Goals (14-R-0278)
EPA Did Not Conduct
Thorough Biennial User Fee
Reviews (14-P-0 129)
The EPA Needs to Improve
Timeliness and
Documentation of Workforce
and Workload Management
Corrective Actions
(13-P-0366)
Labor-Charging Practices at
the New Mexico Environment
Department (13-4-0296)
Report
Date
07/16/14
09/30/14
06/04/14
03/04/14
08/30/13
06/17/13
Office
OW
OLEM
Region 2
OW
OCFO
Region 6
Unimplemented Recommendation
3. Require that EPA regions, when
reviewing the capitalization grant
application for states with high
unliquidated obligations balances,
ensure states have adopted the EPA's
guidance on the definition of "Ready to
proceed" and use that definition in
developing the fundable list.
5. Following completion of the 2012
Strategy, create and post as summary
of the results of the EPA's efforts to
address sites included in the strategy
and, as applicable, any findings and
recommendations on the EPA's
website.
1 . Require New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection to establish
internal controls to ensure that
modifications to the cooperative
agreement work plan are in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 31 .30
and 31 .40.
5. Apply federal user fee policy in
determining whether to (a) charge fees
for issuing federal National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits
in which the EPA is the permitting
authority, or (b) request an exception
from Office of Management and Budget
to charging fees.
1 . Notify all the EPA's action officials
that when they extend planned
completion dates for corrective actions
by more than 6 months they must
provide the DIG with written notification
that includes the new milestone dates.
1 . Disallow and recover unsupported
labor costs of $298,159 from Air Quality
Bureau and $2,974,318 from Drinking
Water Bureau, unless New Mexico
Environment Department can provide
support that complies with 2 CFR Part
225, Appendix B, Section 8.h.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/15
12/31/15
09/30/15
12/31/14
09/30/15
05/31/14
Reason for Delay
Each state has its own institutional
processes superimposed on the Intended
Use Plan development process it uses in
establishing its fundable plan. Regions will
continue to work with states that still need to
modify their processes to accomplish
inclusion of this definition in implementing
their Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
fundable plans. The new completion date is
9/30/16.
The summary of results based on EPA's
implementation of the 2012 lead strategy is
currently in draft, and will need time for the
lead smelter workgroup to give one last
review and to go through the signature
process. It is due for completion by 6/30/16.
The DIG audit was conducted under the
former EPA grant regulations. The new
Uniform Grants Guidance changed the
grants and EPA-specific CFR Part 35 rules,
making the guidance much more
complicated, and requiring more time to
finalize an agencywide policy. Guidance is
then expected to be issued by 3/31/17.
OW is working with OCFO to request an
exception from a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System user fee from
the Office of Management and Budget.
Delays result from the loss of contractor
assistance with the Management
Accountability Reviews and reduced staffing.
Reviews have been scaled back from seven
to four being performed each year.
Management Accountability Reviews were
started in June 2013 and to date, eight
reviews have been completed. At the current
rate, the anticipated completion date is
September 30, 2018.
EPA is considering approving a regulatory
exception to allow a large amount of the
questioned labor costs New Mexico
Environment Department charged to EPA
grants that were questioned in an DIG audit.
Office of Grants and Debarment and
Region 6 will consult with the DIG in April
2016 prior to making a decision on whether
to grant an exception, with completion of
corrective actions expected by 6/30/16.
53
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Improvements Needed in
EPA Training and Oversight
for Risk Management
Program Inspections
(13-P-0178)
Report
Date
03/21/13
Office
OLEM
Unimplemented Recommendation
2. Ensure that New Mexico
Environment Department does not
claim unsupported costs of $486,305
for the period October 1 , 201 1 , to
April 13, 201 2, for grant F00620311,
unless New Mexico Environment
Department can provide support that
complies with 2 CFR Part 225,
Appendix B, Section 8.h.
3. Identify and recover any unsupported
costs from Air Quality Bureau- and
Drinking Water Bureau-administered
grants, which are not covered in our
cost-impact determination.
5. Disallow and recover unsupported
Surface Water Quality Bureau labor
costs of $2,733,798 claimed under
grant number C99961 01 12, unless
New Mexico Environment Department
can provide support that complies with
federal requirements.
7. Revise inspection guidance to
recommend minimum inspection scope
for the various types of facilities
covered under the program and provide
more detailed examples of minimum
reporting.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/14
12/31/14
12/31/14
07/31/14
Reason for Delay
This action requires development of
guidance which will specify the minimum
inspection scope for each of the facility types
regulated by the Risk Management Program
and revise reporting guidance to provide
detailed examples of compliance. Currently
the Administration's priority is to complete a
final Risk Management Program regulation
by late 2016/early 2017. Following
completion of the final regulation, EPA will
be required to revise the Risk Management
Program on-line reporting system and over a
dozen guidance documents to incorporate
the regulatory changes. This effort will take
2-3 years and must be completed in that
timeframe to give facilities time to review the
guidance and comply with the new
requirements under the Risk Management
Program. The revised completion date is
9/30/18.
54
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Results and Benefits
Information is Needed to
Support Impacts of EPA's
Superfund Removal Program
(13-P-0176)
Report
Date
03/11/13
Office
OLEM
Unimplemented Recommendation
8. Develop and implement an
inspection monitoring and oversight
program to better manage and assess
the quality of program inspections,
reports, supervisory oversight, and
compliance with inspection guidance.
2. Implement system controls to:
a. Ensure required Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Information System data are
entered and completed.
b. Synchronize data between the
Pollution Reports and
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/14
09/30/13
Reason for Delay
This action requires the development of an
on-line system for the regions to file/submit
each of their inspection reports. This system
must allow for quality control and the ability
to not only assess the quality of the
inspection reports, but identify trends and
issues at Risk Management Program
facilities in order to better target our
inspection efforts. Currently the
Administration's priority is to complete a final
Risk Management Program regulation by
late 2016/early 2017. Following completion
of the final regulation, EPA will be required to
revise the Risk Management Program
on-line reporting system and over a dozen
guidance documents to incorporate the
regulatory changes. The revised completion
date is 09/30/1 9.
When the OIG review concluded in 2013,
synchronizing data between Pollution
Reports and Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System seemed like a possible
option to explore. However since the report
was issued, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System was retired
and replaced with the Superfund Enterprise
Management System. The new system has
ongoing software changes and fixes being
implemented and the concept of pulling data
from a non-EPA web site to populate this
system was found to be problematic, costly
and duplicative. Removal data is currently
being entered into the Superfund Enterprise
Management System and OLEM is working
closely with the regions to ensure the quality
of the data migrated from the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information
System.
The OLEM is working with the OIG to
determine if the intent of this
recommendation has been met with the
request for change in corrective action.
Expected completion is June 2016.
55
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA Could Improve
Contingency for Oil and
Hazardous Substance
Response (13-P-01 52)
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 201 2
and 2011 Consolidated
Financial Statements
(13-1-0054)
Review of Hotline Complaint
Concerning Cost and Benefit
Estimates for EPA's
Lead-Based Paint Rule
(12-P-0600)
Report
Date
02/15/13
11/15/12
07/25/12
Office
OLEM
OCFO
OCSPP
Unimplemented Recommendation
4. Assess the resources, including
On-Scene Coordinators, necessary to
develop and maintain contingency
plans. Use the results of this analysis to
develop a workforce plan to distribute
contingency planning resources.
6. Update EPA's policy for recognizing
year-end accruals to require
reconciliations of accruals and accrual
reversals.
1 . Reexamine the estimated costs and
benefits of the 2008 Lead Rule and the
2010 amendment to determine whether
the rule should be modified,
streamlined, expanded, or repealed.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/13
03/31/13
Reason for Delay
The OLEM agreed to re-assess
Recommendation 4 by August 2015. Now
that the second round of Voluntary Early
Retirement Authority/Voluntary Separation
Incentive Payment has concluded and the
agency is trying to hire personnel to reach
the 15,000 full-time equivalent level, it is an
opportune time to relook at the
recommendation. The new Director, Office of
Emergency Management, has been tasked
to develop a long-term strategic plan for the
program office. As part of the strategic
planning process, Office of Emergency
Management plans to work closely with its
regional partners to inform and prioritize
agency emergency response and removal
program efforts. Due to the revitalized focus
on area contingency planning as a result of
the crude-by-rail issue and chemical
executive order, staff resources and support
for area planning will certainly be part of that
programmatic conversation. The OLEM
Assistant Administrator has requested that
Office of Emergency Management have a
final strategic plan in place by 5/30/1 6.
Corrective action is being delayed until
12/31/16 in order to give the agency an
opportunity to explore new methods to
streamline its accrual processes and take
advantage of efficiencies available in the
Compass upgrade scheduled for February,
2016.
The schedule for the Lead Renovation,
Repair and Painting in Public and
Commercial Buildings Rulemaking requires
the EPA to evaluate whether or not
renovation activities on public and
commercial buildings create lead-based
paint hazards as defined under section 403
of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The
OCSPP's corrective action plan sent to the
DIG on 1 1/28/12, stated that the timeline for
developing the Lead Renovation Repair and
Painting on Public and Commercial Building
Rulemaking would be subject to both
(1) OMB approval of a survey to gather the
more extensive information and (2) a
settlement agreement which stipulated that
EPA propose a rule by 7/1/1 5.
The settlement agreement has since been
amended, and the new date for the
proposed rule is now 3/31/1 7. As a result,
the schedule for completion of corrective
actions 1-3 and 1-4 is now as follows:
56
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Controls Over State
Underground Storage Tank
Inspection Programs in EPA
Regions Generally Effective
(12-P-0289)
EPA Needs to Further
Improve How It Manages Its
Oil Pollution Prevention
Program (12-P-0253)
Report
Date
02/15/12
02/06/12
Office
OLEM
OLEM
Unimplemented Recommendation
CAS: OCSPP will draft information
and analysis submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for
Interagency review as part of the
Action Development Process.
CA4: OCSPP will publish the work
practice and cost information as part
of the proposed rule.
1 . Require EPA and states to enter into
Memorandums of Agreement that
reflect program changes from the
2005 Energy Policy Act and address
oversight of municipalities conducting
inspections.
1 . Improve oversight of facilities
regulated by the EPA's oil pollution
prevention program by:
d. Producing a biennial public
assessment of the quality and
consistency of Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plans
and Facility Response Plans based
on inspected facilities.
CA 1 -2 . A summary of findings will
be developed by October, 2013.
These findings will help to identify
areas where additional guidance
and outreach are needed to improve
the quality and consistency of Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plans.
CA 1-3. The model developed for
the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure program will then
be used to develop a review
protocol for Facility Response Plans
by September, 2013, to examine
Facility Response Plan inspections
conducted during the FY 2013
inspection cycle.
Planned
Completion
Date
03/31/15
09/30/15
08/01/13
10/31/13
09/30/13
Reason for Delay
The draft proposed rule is currently
scheduled to be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 by
11/21/16.
The Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting
in Public and Commercial Buildings Rule
proposed rulemaking is currently scheduled
to be signed by 3/31/1 7, with publication
following in 7-10 work days.
On 7/15/15, the revised Underground
Storage Tank regulations were published.
These rules will become effective on
10/3/15. States were given 3 years
(10/13/18) to submit their application to
receive State Program Approval or the
application to get their current State Program
Approval status renewed. We agreed that we
would require all states to update their
current Memorandums of Agreement with
EPA at the same time. Therefore, our
expected completion date for this action is
10/13/18.
Reduced extramural resources and
personnel, program implementation including
inspections and new priority concerns for oil
spill response associated with increased oil
transportation have delayed, and will
continue to delay, effort on this milestone for
at least a year or more. In addition, recent
enactment of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act place priority
responsibilities on the Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure program for
the next 2 years. Consequently, action on
this action cannot begin before June 2017.
57
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Region 9 Technical and
Computer Room Security
Vulnerabilities Increase Risk
to EPA's Network
(11-P-0725)
EPA Needs Workload Data
to Better Justify Future
Workforce Levels
(11-P-0630)
An Overall Strategy Can
Improve Communication
Efforts at Asbestos
Superfund Site in Libby,
Montana (11-P-0430)
EPA Needs Better Agency-
Wide Controls Over Staff
Resources (11-P-01 36)
EPA Needs to Strengthen
Internal Controls for
Determining Workforce
Levels (11-P-0031)
Report
Date
09/30/11
09/14/11
08/03/11
02/22/11
12/20/10
Office
Region 9
OCFO
Region 8
OARM
OCFO
Unimplemented Recommendation
CA 1 -4. A summary of findings will
be developed by October 2014.
These findings will help to identify
areas where additional guidance
and external outreach are needed to
improve the quality and consistency
of Facility Response Plans.
4, 6, 8, and 10. These
recommendations were made to the
senior information official, Region 9.
Detailed information for this report is
not being included due to the sensitive
nature of the report's security findings.
1 . Conduct a pilot project requiring EPA
organizations to collect and analyze
workload data on key project activities.
2. Use information learned from the
pilot and the ongoing contracted
workload study to issue guidance to the
EPA's program offices on:
a. How to collect and analyze
workload data.
b. The benefits of workload analysis.
c. How this information should be
used to prepare budget requests.
2. Revise the Libby community
engagement plan to serve as the
overall communication strategy by
including:
a. Key messages that address
specific public concerns and site
activities;
b. Timeliness for community
involvement activities and
outreach projects;
c. Measures for successful
communications; and
d. Mechanisms for identifying
community concerns and
collecting feedback.
1 . Establish an Agency-wide workforce
program that includes controls to ensure
regular reviews of positions for efficiency,
effectiveness, and mission
accomplishment.
Amend the Resource Management
Directive System 2520 and the annual
planning and budget memoranda to
require using workload analysis to help
determine employment levels needed to
accomplish agency goals.
Planned
Completion
Date
10/31/14
03/31/14
09/30/12
09/30/12
12/31/15
09/30/12
09/30/12
Reason for Delay
Due to the sensitive nature of this report, this
section is not included.
OCFO is finalizing Resource Management
Directive 2520 for agency review and Office
of Financial Management will submit to
Office of Management and Budget for official
clearance. OMB advised OFM that they will
not be able to provide approval for RMDS
2520 until May 2016. The planned
completion date was been extended to May
31 , 2016 to reflect the change in OMB's
approval schedule.
Region 8 expects to complete the
Community Involvement Plan by 6/30/1 6.
The plan will implement a process for
ongoing evaluation post Record of Decision
Region 8's communication strategy and
incorporate results into community
involvement planning.
As of 2/1 9/16, the order was submitted to the
Human Resources community for
review/comments. To date, the order is still
being reviewed in PPTD. It will be sent out to
the Human Resources community for
showstopper comments and thereafter
submitted for signature. Anticipated
completion of this action is 6/30/16.
The revised Resource Management
Directive 2520 was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and
approval. Office of Management and Budget
has notified EPA that they have comments
on the Directive. EPA has scheduled a
meeting for 4/26/1 6 to review Office of
Management and Budget's comments.
58
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA Needs a Coordinated Plan
to Oversee its Toxic
Substances Control Act
Responsibilities (10-P-0066)
Review of Hotline Complaint on
Employee Granted Full-Time
Work-at-Home Privilege
(10-P-0002)
Report
Date
02/17/10
10/07/09
Office
OCSPP
OARM
Unimplemented Recommendation
2-5. Develop a more detailed Toxic
Substances Control Act confidential
business information classification guide
that provides criteria for approving
confidential business information coverage
and establishes a time limit for all
confidential business information requests
to allow for eventual public access to
health and safety data for chemicals.
1 . Assign responsibility for authorizing
all non-OARM geographically separate
duty station changes to the Assistant
Administrator for OARM.
2a. Establish and implement agency
policy for all of the EPA's employees,
clearly articulating the process and
procedures for changing an employee's
duty station to a location geographically
separate from the position of record.
This policy should include eligibility
criteria for positions and personnel,
records management requirements,
periodic review and reauthorization,
verification of correct pay rate (locality
and grade), and specific approvals
required from initial submission to final
approval to ensure equity. The policy
should require the Assistant
Administrator for OARM to be the final
decision authority for all geographically
separate duty station locations
authorizations except those duty station
location changes initiated within OARM.
2b. Identify and review all existing
arrangements of full-time work-at-duty-
station separate from the position of
record, including the situation that was
the subject of this review, and bring
each of these arrangements into
compliance with implemented EPA
policy.
Planned
Completion
Date
01/31/12
06/20/11
06/20/11
06/30/11
Reason for Delay
The OCSPP continues to consider a range
of actions, including regulatory, to address
this recommendation, but a completion date
has not been formally scheduled. However,
as part of the office's commitment to
increasing public access to critical chemical
information, OCSPP developed and
launched ChemView. ChemView is an easy
to use online database of a wide range of
health and safety information on more than
10,000 chemicals. ChemView was designed
to improve access to and the usefulness of
chemical information, enabling the public
and decision makers to easily find the
information they need to make safer
chemical choices. EPA has also declassified
more than 1 ,000 chemical Confidential
Business Information claims, making this
information publicly available for the first
time.
As of 3/30/1 6, the American Federation of
Government Employees did not ratify the
policy. The agency will work with the
American Federation of Government
Employees to strategize on next steps. As of
the current update, conversations are
ongoing between the American Federation
of Government Employees and agency
management to reach an agreement on
telework.
59
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Making Better Use of
Stringfellow Superfund
Special Accounts
(08-P-0196)
Asbestos Cleanup in Libby
Montana (2007-P-00002)
EPA Can Better Manage
Superfund Resources
(2006-P-00013)
Report
Date
07/09/08
12/05/06
02/28/06
Office
Region 9
OLEM
OCFO
Unimplemented Recommendation
2. Reclassify or transfer to the Trust
Fund, as appropriate, up to $27.8
million (plus any earned interest less
oversight costs) of the Stringfellow
special accounts in annual reviews, and
at other milestones including the end of
FY 2010, when the record of decision is
signed and the final settlement is
achieved.
1 . Fund and execute a comprehensive
amphibole asbestos toxicity
assessment to determine (1) the
effectiveness of the Libby removal
actions, and (2) to determine whether
more actions are necessary. The
toxicity assessment should include the
effects of asbestos on children. The
EPA Science Advisory Board should
review the toxicity assessment and
report to the Office of the Administrator
and the Libby Community Advisory
Group whether the proposed toxicity
assessment can sufficiently protect
human health.
2-3:1 . Define costs in a manner that
supports management decision making
and improve their accounting of such
resources to maximize achieving
program goals.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/12
09/30/15
09/30/12
Reason for Delay
The delay of the Record of Decision and
reclassification of funds are due to contract
stays, employee furloughs and additional
investigative work needed. As a result of the
continued fiscal uncertainties in the state,
EPA will continue to maintain the funds in
the Stringfellow accounts to implement the
final remedy, if required. EPA intended to
re-evaluate the use of funds after the
final Record of Decision is completed.
The testing phase of the laboratory toxicity
studies being conducted under the Libby
Action Plan by EPA's National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
was completed this month. Analysis of tissue
samples was completed in May 2014. A final
report summarizing these studies and their
results is anticipated to be completed by
5/30/16.
The Office of Management and Budget
advised OCFO that they will not be able to
provide approval for Resource Management
Directive 2520 until May 2016. The planned
completion date was been extended to
reflect the change in the Office of
Management and Budgets approval
schedule.
60
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
CSB Reports With Past Due Unimplemented Recommendations
Report Title/No.
U.S Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board
Needs to Complete More
Timely Investigations
(13-P-0337)
Report
Date
07/30/13
Unimplemented Recommendation
1 . Develop and implement performance
indicators related to its first strategic
performance goal and objective to complete
timely investigations. Indicators should track and
measure the efficiency of key phases of the
investigation process and clarify the definition of
a "timely" completed investigation. Also, address
the indicators in the investigation protocol policy.
2. Revise and publish an annual action plan to
comply with GPRA (Government Performance
and Results Act) 2010 and update related
individual performance plans to ensure that
performance indicators are addressed and
investigative staff are held accountable for
performing key phases in the investigation
process.
3. Review investigations open for more than
3 years and develop a plan to close out those
investigations.
7. Implement and update the records
management policy to ensure that the
classification of electronic investigation files
agrees with the investigation protocol policy and
staffs perform internal reviews of records as
required by the policy.
8. Update the investigation protocol policy for all
current investigation procedures to include
scoping documents and recommendation briefs.
Provide formal training to the investigative staff
on changes and updates to the investigative
process.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/13
12/31/13
12/31/13
12/31/13
12/31/13
Reason for Delay
The CSB is analyzing key investigation metrics
such as investigator hours, costs and elapsed
days to develop performance indicators for
various investigation product types. These
indicators will be incorporated in the Investigation
Product Development and Review procedure of
the investigation protocol, which will provide
timelines for key milestones. Given staff
resources and the investigation workload, the
deadline for completion has been changed. We
expect to provide the board with a draft
Investigation Product Development and Review
procedure for consideration and approval by
9/30/16. Other work priorities have delayed the
completion of this recommendation.
The CSB developed its FY 201 6 Action Plan and
have provided a copy of the plan to OIG on
2/23/16. Final Action Plan will be provided to OIG
at the end FY 201 6.
The CSB provided a listing to the OIG that shows
the status and plans for closure of all
investigations. It will continue to provide OIG all
updates. The draft report for the Williams Olefins
incident is currently under review. The draft report
for the Macondo Blowout and explosion incident
has been sent to the board for notation vote. All
votes are due by 4/27/1 6. These are the last of
the investigations open for more than 3 years.
Copies of the final reports will be provided to the
OIG upon completion.
The CSB has updated Board Order 19 - Records
Management and revised report is currently with
the Board for notation vote. All votes are due by
4/21/16.
With the departure of several members of the
protocol team, a new team was formed to
complete the updates. The team has been
delayed because of many competing investigation
priorities.
61
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Audit Follow-Up Process
Needed for the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board
(13-P-0128)
U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board
Did Not Take Effective
Corrective Actions on Prior
Audit Recommendations
(11-P-0115)
Report
Date
02/01/13
02/15/11
Unimplemented Recommendation
1 . Develop and implement a follow-up system as
required by Office of Management and Budget
Circulars A-50 and A-123 that include
establishing a policy that identifies an audit
follow-up official, roles and responsibilities,
required documentation, and reporting
requirements, to allow for prompt resolution of
recommendations and implementation of
agreed-to corrective actions.
1 . Develop and implement a management
control plan that documents and addresses the
five internal control standards in accordance
with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-123 and General Accounting Office's
Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal
Government. The plan should include an
effective monitoring system to track corrective
actions to address and implement audit
recommendations. The plan is to include:
a. A database to track all prior audit recom-
mendations, planned milestone completion
dates, and corrective actions taken.
b. Procedures for conducting periodic internal
control reviews and properly documenting
those reviews, including verifying and
ensuring that audit recommendations are
resolved promptly.
2. Develop and publish a regulation requiring
persons to report chemical accidents, as
required by the Clean Air Act.
Planned
Completion
Date
04/30/13
02/28/11
09/30/11
Reason for Delay
The CSB Audit Follow-up document was
forwarded to the DIG on 12/21/15. The CSB and
DIG met via teleconference on 1/21/16 to discuss
document. Revisions were recommended. The
document was forwarded to the CSB Office of
General Counsel for review. The document is
expected to be final by 6/30/16.
The Management Accountability Control Plan was
forwarded to the DIG on 12/21/15. The CSB and
DIG met via teleconference on 1/21/16 to discuss
documents. Revisions were recommend,
completed and forwarded back to DIG on 2/17/16.
CSB and DIG discussed revisions on 2/29/16.
Revisions made to the document and forwarded
to CSB OGC for review. Final expected by
6/30/16.
Although the CSB's current incident reporting
mechanisms adequately notify the agency of
important incidents, the CSB Office of the General
Counsel is discussing regulatory initiatives,
including a potential incident reporting regulation,
with the new board members. An effective
incident reporting rule would require additional
resources to support new mechanisms to collect,
input, process, and report the incident data
received pursuant to the rule. Consequently,
incident reporting rulemaking requires careful
consideration and input from a variety of CSB
stakeholders and Congress. The CSB will
continue to explore this endeavor and update the
DIG with our decisions and progress annually.
CSB noted in its response to the draft, EPA OIG
2015 Proposed Management Challenges for
CSB, that it plans to focus on how to best execute
its mission to investigate accidents as it performs
an internal organizational review.
62
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
EPA Reports With Unimplemented Recommendations With Future Dates
Report Title/No.
EPA Should Collect Full Costs for
Its Interagency Agreements and
Report Full Costs for Great Lakes
Legacy Act (15-P-0300)
Unused Earmark Funds for Water
Projects Totaling $6.2 Million Could
Be Put to Better Use (15-P-0299)
EPA Needs to Improve the
Recognition and Administration of
Cloud Services for the Office of
Water's Permit Management
Oversight System (15-P-0295)
EPA Needs Better Management
Controls for Approval of Employee
Travel (15-P-0294)
Incomplete Contractor Systems
Inventory and a Lack of Oversight
Limit EPA's Ability to Facilitate IT
Governance (15-P-0290)
EPA Needs to Track Whether Its
Major Municipal Settlements for
Combined Sewer Overflows Benefit
Water Quality (15-P-0280)
Report
Date
09/30/15
09/30/15
09/24/15
09/22/15
09/21/15
09/16/15
Office
OARM&
OCFO
Region 5 &
OCFO
OW
OW
OCFO
OEI
OECA
Unimplemented Recommendation
2. Train project officers to prepare independent government cost
estimates with indirect costs.
4. Direct the Great Lakes National Program Office to disclose in the
Great Lakes Legacy Act project agreements that EPA's direct labor
and indirect costs are not being included, with management's reason
for not including these costs. Document the final project costs,
including direct and indirect charges, in the closeout memo for each
project agreement.
1 . Develop and communicate guidance to EPA regions aimed to further
reduce Special Appropriations Act Project grant unliquidated
obligations by clarifying:
a. The time period that is reasonable for a grant to have no financial
activity before taking steps to identify the grant as a no-progress
grant.
b. The guidelines that determine a grant is making reasonable or
sufficient progress.
3. Develop and implement a plan to expedite the reduction of
unobligated funds.
4. Develop and implement an approved system authorization package
(i.e., a risk assessment, System Security Plan, and Authorization to
Operate), and perform annual security assessments for the Permit
Management Oversight System application.
3. Determine the amount of ineligible travel expenses to the
Los Angeles area, share details, and take appropriate action to obtain
repayment from the former Region 9 Administrator.
3. Implement the previously approved EPA Information Security Task
Force recommendation for implementing role-based training and
credentialing programs, and include contractor oversight training as
part of the programs.
4. Implement the recommendation of the EPA's Information Security
Task Force to manage annual security assessments, and include
steps to oversee assessments to be conducted under a centralized
contract or interagency agreement.
5. Implement the recommendation of the EPA's Information Security
Task Force to manage the vulnerability management program.
2. Develop a nationally consistent consent decree tracking and
accountability system that includes:
a. Consent decree milestones.
b. Frequency of combined sewer overflow events and changes in
combined sewer overflow volumes.
c. Effluent and water quality data collected by states and
communities at combined sewer overflow outfalls.
d. Wherever possible, water quality improvement of municipal
impaired waters attributable to combined sewer overflow
upgrades.
4. Provide information on a public website that links the public to
combined sewer overflow consent decree information, and links to
information produced under the recommendation pertaining to
progress and results.
Planned
Completion
Date
06/30/16
01/31/17
11/30/16
11/30/16
05/31/16
04/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/17
04/01/16
04/01/16
63
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Report
Date
Office
Unimplemented Recommendation
Planned
Completion
Date
EPA's Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards Program Lacks
Adequate Support and
Transparency and Should Be
Assessed for Continuation
(15-P-0279)
09/15/2015
OCSPP
2. Assess the need and value of the Green Chemistry Awards
Program for supporting pollution prevention or other agency goals and
measures. If the agency determines that the program is useful, should
be continued, and elects to use the data to support agency goals, the
EPA should:
a. Implement a system to track and analyze data and environmental
results collected by the program.
b. Develop a program feedback system that includes a process for
gathering information on the subsequent impact(s) of projects that
have received awards, and includes tracking data to evidence the
long-term benefits of green chemistry innovations.
d. Develop program-specific goals, objectives and measures.
e. Link the program's activities to EPA and OCSPP strategic plan
goals and performance measures.
f. Create a program-specific logic model that reflects outputs and
short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes of the program.
g. Periodically review the program to evaluate results and to assess
progress in achieving goals.
09/30/16
07/31/16
09/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/16
EPA Can Reduce Risk of
Undetected Clean Air Act Violations
Through Better Monitoring of
Settlement Agreements (15-P-0277)
09/10/15
OECA
Region 3
1. Update and reissue the Manual on Monitoring and Enforcing
Administrative and Judicial Orders to address:
a. Requirements for monitoring of consent decrees, including
enforcement file documentation; responsibilities for ensuring
applicable Clean Air Act permit applications and draft permits
have incorporated consent decree-required emission limits and
other requirements; and documentation of EPA management
decisions, company follow-up and correspondence.
b. EPA's general responsibilities and process to be used to
terminate a consent decree.
c. Documentation needed to demonstrate supervisory review of
enforcement staff's consent decree monitoring activities.
2. Ensure that all regions have consent decree compliance monitoring
systems in place that:
a. Track receipt of all consent decree deliverables.
b. Flag overdue consent decree deliverables.
c. Provide timely access to all consent decree deliverables.
d. Document EPA decisions as to whether deliverables meet the
consent decree requirements.
e. Record all consent decree violations and EPA decisions on
whether and how much stipulated penalties were assessed.
f. Demonstrate supervisory review and approval of enforcement
staff's consent decree monitoring activities.
4. As part of the periodic review of AEP's annual progress reports for
compliance with the consent decree, confirm whether American
Electric Power submitted a Title V permit renewal application and
corresponding copy of the draft permit for the John Amos facility that
included the consent decree requirements for flue gas desulfurization
controls, and take appropriate follow-up action as needed to ensure
the consent decree requirements are met.
09/30/16
09/30/16
06/19/16
EPA Can Increase Impact of
Environmental Justice on Agency
Rulemaking by Meeting
Commitments and Measuring
Adherence to Guidance (15-P-0274)
09/03/15
OA
2. If the February 2016 milestone date to issue the EJ Technical
Guidance is missed by 6 months, prepare and submit to the EPA
Administrator a report detailing the progress in completing the
document, including reasons for delay, revised milestone date, and
steps to keep the completion of the guidance on schedule.
08/31/16
64
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Report
Date
Office
Unimplemented Recommendation
Planned
Completion
Date
Enhanced EPA Oversight and
Action Can Further Protect Water
Resources From the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
(15-P-0204)
07/16/15
OW
1. Use authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act to:
a. Determine whether the EPA, primacy states and tribes issue
permits for hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels as required by
statute, the interpretive memorandum and permitting guidance.
b. Report the results of the determination to the public.
c. Submit an action plan outlining the steps (along with completion
dates) the agency will take if the determination reveals permitting
of hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels is not occurring in
accordance with statute, the interpretive memorandum and
permitting guidance.
12/31/16
03/30/17
03/30/17
EPA Does Not Effectively Control or
Monitor Imports of Hazardous
Waste (15-P-0172)
07/06/15
OECA&
OLEM
3. Work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use the
International Trade Data System for hazardous waste imports to
enhance domestic compliance monitoring.
12/31/16
EPA Should Update Guidance to
Address the Release of Potentially
Harmful Quantities of Asbestos That
Can Occur Under EPA's Asbestos
Demolition Standard (15-P-0168)
06/16/15
OAR
1. Assemble a team of experienced asbestos experts from the
Technical Review Workgroup, OECA, OLEM, Office of General
Counsel, on-scene coordinators, and asbestos inspectors to advise
and assist OAR in producing an updated consolidated guidance
document which has practical application to the regulated community.
2. Review rule applicability regarding containment of asbestos-
contaminated waste materials at demolition sites (including, but not
limited to, asbestos in demolition water).
3. Identify, review and revise, as appropriate, the pertinent existing
guidance documents.
4. Collect, review and compile existing work practices into a set of
implementation guidelines for containment of asbestos-contaminated
waste materials, and materials contaminated by asbestos during the
demolition process.
5. Collect and review existing applicability determinations issued by
regional offices and headquarters that have a bearing on this issue.
6. Identify and review existing sampling and analysis methods that are
applicable to asbestos in various media, and incorporate into the
guidance as appropriate.
7. Consolidate relevant materials into a single set of guidance
materials.
8. Implement guidance via outreach to local and state agencies and
regional offices through team meetings, monthly Regional Asbestos
Coordinator/ National Asbestos Council group meetings, technical
conferences and symposia, and/or Web-based platforms.
04/30/16
04/30/16
04/30/16
04/30/16
04/30/16
04/30/16
04/30/16
04/30/16
Time and Attendance Fraud Not
Identified for Employees on Extended
Absence, But Matters of Concern
Brought to EPA's Attention (15-P-0167)
6/15/15
OA
1. Address the specific matters of concern noted in this report pertaining to:
a. Accuracy of time charges in PeoplePlus.
b. Use of a personal computer to conduct official work.
c. Safety of the work space for employee on Reasonable
Accommodation telework.
4/30/16
65
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA's Oversight of State Pesticide
Inspections Needs Improvement to
Ensure Safeguard for Workers,
Public and Environment Are
Enforced (15-P-01 56)
Conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands
Warrant EPA Withdrawing Approval
and Taking Over Management of
Some Environmental Programs and
Improving Oversight of Others
(15-P-0137)
Audit of EPA's Fiscal Years 2014
and 2013 (Restated) Consolidated
Financial Statements (15-1-0021)
Enhanced EPA Oversight Needed
to Address Risks From Declining
Clean Air Act Title V Revenues
(15-P-0006)
Report
Date
5/15/15
4/17/15
11/17/14
10/20/14
Office
OECA
Region 2
OCFO
OAR
Unimplemented Recommendation
1 .In conjunction with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, revise the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act Project Officer Manual to include specific guidance for:
a. Reporting, documenting and retaining records from project officer
inspection reviews.
b. Providing documentation on how a state's enforcement actions
are consistent with the state's enforcement policies and
procedures.
c. Selecting inspection files for review.
d. Documenting closeout meeting with states.
9. To improve oversight of the Clean Air Act, establish a timeframe for
Region 2 to complete end-of-year grant performance evaluations.
13. To improve oversight of the Underground Storage Tank/Leaking
Underground Storage Tank program, establish an updated
Underground Storage Tank/Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Virgin Islands that reflect
changes and new provisions results from the Energy Policy Act of
2005. The Memorandum of Agreement should also outline roles,
responsibilities and expectations.
15. Assist U.S. Virgin Islands with getting Local Emergency Planning
Committees fully operational.
16. Assist USVI in implementing procedures to identify Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Tier II non-filters.
17. Review Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
and other data to ensure that all Risk Management Program-covered
facilitates are reporting to the EPA.
18. Develop a plan to address currently uncompleted tasks and
activities, and develop a schedule for reprogramming grant funds to
accomplish these task if U.S. Virgin Islands does not or cannot
complete them. Upon completion of the financial management
corrective actions, follow the OCFO's Resource Management Directive
System 2520-03 to determine whether any of the current unspent
funds of approximately $37 million under the U.S. Virgin Islands
assistance agreements could be put to better use.
2. Require the Reporting and Analysis Staff to coordinate with OARM
project officers to receive software project cost support once placed
into service.
3. Document and support project costs for all software costs placed
into service over the past 7 years.
1 . Assess whether the EPA's 1993 fee schedule guidance sufficiently
addresses current program issues and requirements related to how
Title V fees should be collected, retained, allocated and used. Revise
the fee guidance as necessary and re-issue to EPA regions.
2. Issue guidance requiring EPA regions to periodically obtain and
assess authorized state and local permitting authorities' Title V
program revenues, expenses and accounting practices to ensure that
permitting authorities collect sufficient Title V revenues to cover Title V
program costs.
Planned
Completion
Date
06/30/17
09/30/16
09/30/18
09/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/18
10/31/18
10/31/18
09/30/17
09/30/17
66
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA Region 6 Mismanaged Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act Funds (15-P-0003)
Report
Date
10/09/14
Office
Region 6
Unimplemented Recommendation
3. Establish a fee oversight strategy, including a hierarchy of actions
and related timeframes, to ensure that EPA regions take consistent
and timely actions to identify and address violations of 40 CFR Part 70
Title V fee revenues, expenses and accounting practices.
4. Ensure that EPA regions complete program evaluation reports of
authorized state and local permitting authorities within a reasonable
period of time following the evaluation, and require that EPA regions
publicly issue these program evaluation reports.
5. Require that EPA regions periodically emphasize and include
reviews of Title V fee revenue and accounting practices in Title V
program evaluations.
6. Require that EPA regions address shortfalls in the financial or
accounting expertise among regional Title V program staff as the
regions update their workforce plans. This may include resource
sharing and collaboration with other EPA regions, or use of outside
organizations, as appropriate.
7. Require that EPA regions re-assess permitting authority fee
structures when revenue sufficiency issues are identified during
program evaluations, and require fee demonstrations as necessary.
8. Require that EPA regions take action on permitting authorities not in
compliance with 40 CFR Part 70 by finding them to be inadequately
administered or enforced, and issuing the required Notice of
Deficiencies.
1 . Reimburse the Task Force (through the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers) questioned costs of $780,793, unless Region 6 Water
Quality Protection Division management provides sufficient and
appropriate documentation to demonstrate that questioned costs paid
with the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
funds were incurred in accordance with the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, appropriations law and
principles, and interagency agreements.
2. Direct the Region 6 Assistant Regional Administrator to work with
the OCFO to perform an internal review of the Water Quality Protection
Division's Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
spending at the end of FY 2014 to identify improper expenditures that
occurred in 2008 and 2009, as well as from July 1 , 2013, through
September 30, 2014. Reimburse the Task Force (through the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers) any questioned costs identified during this
review.
3. Identify and address any Antideficiency Act violations resulting from
questioned costs identified in this report or found by the Region 6
Assistant Regional Administrator's review, and report any violations in
accordance with the Antideficiency Act and EPA Directive 2520.
5. Take administrative disciplinary actions, in accordance with EPA
Directive 2520, against EPA employees responsible for purpose
violations or Antideficiency Act violations related to improper Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act spending.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/17
09/30/16
09/30/17
09/30/17
09/30/17
09/30/17
12/31/16
12/31/16
12/31/16
12/31/16
67
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
Cloud Oversight Resulted in
Unsubstantiated and Missed
Opportunities for Savings, Unused
and Undelivered Services, and
Incomplete Policies (14-P-0332)
Improvements Needed in EPA
Efforts to Address Methane
Emissions From Natural Gas
Distribution Pipelines (14-P-0324)
Impact of EPA's Conventional
Reduced Risk Pesticide Program Is
Declining (14-P-0322)
Unliquidated Obligations Resulted in
Missed Opportunities to Improve
Drinking Water Infrastructure
(14-P-0318)
EPA Has Made Progress in
Assessing Historical Lead Smelter
Sites but Needs to Strengthen
Procedures (14-P-0302)
EPA Has Not Implemented
Adequate Management Procedures
to Address Potential Fraudulent
Environmental Data (14-P-0270)
Report
Date
08/15/14
07/25/14
07/24/14
07/16/14
09/30/14
05/29/14
Office
OEI
OAR
OCSPP
OW
OLEM
OEI
Unimplemented Recommendation
4. Prior to entering into any future Infrastructure-as-a-Service
contracts, perform a formal documented analysis to determine whether
such contracts are in the EPA's best interest that includes the
investments the EPA would have to make to address integration
requirements, obstacles and gaps identified as a result of the current
I nfrastructure-as-a-Service contract.
3. Establish annual performance goals for reducing methane
emissions from distribution pipelines through the EPA's voluntary
programs, such as Natural Gas STAR, and report annually in the
EPA's Annual Performance Report the agency's progress in meeting
these goals.
4. Assess annually whether the above annual performance goals are
being met and, if not, determine whether changes or modifications in
voluntary programs and other options available to the EPA are
needed, including whether regulating methane emissions from the
distribution sector would be appropriate under the Clean Air Act.
5. Review data from existing and ongoing studies (as they become
available) to determine whether the data can be used to verify and/or
update existing emission factors, and document the rationale for
determination of usability. If the data can be used, update emission
factors as appropriate. If not, the EPA should proactively identify
opportunities to work with the research community to obtain the data
needed to update the distribution sector emission factors.
1 . Reduce participation barriers for the Conventional Reduced Risk
Pesticide Program by seeking statutory authority from Congress to
reduce application fees for approved Conventional Reduced Risk
Pesticide registrations.
1b. Reduce unliquidated obligations by quarterly providing to the
regions a summary of states that have attended the cash flow analysis
training and compare that with states not achieving the goals of the
2014 strategy to identify states that may need additional assistance.
3. Assess existing EPA guidance for addressing lead contamination in
soil within the Superfund site assessment process and obtain input
from the regions to determine whether any updates are needed and
revise as appropriate.
2. Include in the revised Chief Information Officer Procedure 2106
specific due diligence steps for laboratory fraud that provide procedural
details on communication and coordination efforts between program
and enforcement staff, review and analysis of data for any impacts to
human health and the environment, communication of any impact
information to data users, and amendment of past environmental
decisions impacted by fraudulent data.
3. Provide training on the "Notification Process" and the revised Chief
Information Officer Procedure 2106 to the EPA staff working with
laboratory data.
Planned
Completion
Date
10/16/17
09/30/16
09/30/16
09/30/16
06/30/17
09/30/16
09/30/16
12/31/16
03/31/17
68
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA Needs to Improve
Management of the Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Regulation
Program in Order to Strengthen
Protection of Human Health and the
Environment (14-P-0 143)
EPA's Information Systems and
Data Are at Risk Due to Insufficient
Training of Personnel with
Significant Information Security
Responsibilities (14-P-0 142)
Internal Controls Needed to Control
Costs of Emergency and Rapid
Response Service Contracts, as
Exemplified in Region 6 (14-P-0109)
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2013 and
201 2 Consolidated Financial
Statements (14-1 -0039)
Air Quality Objectives for the Baton
Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area
Not Met Under EPA Agreement 2A-
96694301 Awarded to the Railroad
Research Foundation (13-R-0297)
Report
Date
03/21/14
03/21/14
02/04/14
12/16/13
06/20/13
Office
OEI
OEI
Region 6
OEI
Region 6
Unimplemented Recommendation
1 . Update written Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
Program (CROMERR) business practices and remove references to
the Exchange Network Policy and Planning Workgroup and Quality
Information Counsel-Exchange Network Subcommittee since they no
longer participate in the CROMERR program. Those written practices
should include:
a. EPA Procedure for Approval of State, Tribal, or Local
Government Authorized or Delegated Program Applications for
Implementing CROMERR;
b. EPA Procedure for Implementation of CROMERR for EPA
Systems;
c. Technical Review Committee Charter; and
d. CROMERR authorized program review for approval flowchart.
1 . Define key information security aspects and duties for each security
role. This includes identifying, where appropriate, broadly similar
characteristics within each role to allow for more precise alignment of
roles to applicable training requirements. This also includes ensuring
that existing EPA policies, procedures, and guidance fully and
consistently define all information security roles and responsibilities
currently implemented across the organization.
2. Provide additional training options specific to the federal information
security environment and EPA information security roles, such as the
processes and controls outlined in National Institute of Standards and
Technology Special Publication 800-53. Training should be specific to
supporting EPA professionals in executing and performing assigned
information security roles and responsibilities in accordance with EPA
policies and procedures. For example, vendor training may be
warranted for hands-on information security roles, but general
orientation training may be suitable for executives.
3. Direct Contracting Officers to require that the contractor adjust all its
billings to reflect the application of the correct rate to team subcontract
other direct costs.
12. Conduct training for staff in charge of receiving and analyzing
monthly vulnerability management reports to ensure they are
knowledgeable of the agency's remediation process for vulnerabilities.
This training should include specific information on how to review the
provided vulnerability management report and what actions offices
must take regarding the identified vulnerabilities.
1 . Recover federal funds of $2,904,578 unless the foundation provides
a verifiable and enforceable remedy to reduce diesel emissions in the
Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area, as required by the
cooperative agreement.
CA2: Two of the five rebuilt locomotives will continue to operate in
the Baton Rouge nonattainment area.
CAS: The remaining three rebuilt locomotives will continue to
operate between Baton Rouge and New Orleans until economic
conditions in Baton Rouge necessitate moving as many
locomotives as possible back to the Baton Rouge nonattainment
area.
CA5: Railroad Research Foundation will provide locomotive
location data to EPA on a quarterly basis showing where the five
locomotives were operated.
Planned
Completion
Date
03/31/17
12/31/16
12/31/16
09/30/24
09/30/17
09/30/20
09/30/20
09/30/20
69
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Report Title/No.
EPA is Not Recovering All Its Costs
of the Lead Based Paint Fees
Program (13-P-0 163)
EPA Needs to Improve Air
Emissions Data for the Oil and
Natural Gas Production Sector
(13-P-0161)
EPA Could Improve Contingency for
Oil and Hazardous Substance
Response (13-P-01 52)
EPA Should Update Its Fees Rule to
Recover More Motor Vehicle and
Engine Compliance Program Costs
(11-P-0701)
EPA Should Revised Outdated or
Inconsistent EPA-State Clean Water
Act Memoranda of Agreement
(10-P-0224)
EPA Needs a Coordinated Plan to
Oversee its Toxic Substances Control
Act Responsibilities (10-P-0066)
Report
Date
02/20/13
02/20/13
02/15/13
09/23/11
09/14/10
02/17/10
Office
OCSPP
OAR
OLEM
OAR
OW&
OECA
OCSPP
Unimplemented Recommendation
CA6: As a penalty for noncompliance, Railroad Research
Foundation will remit to the U.S. EPA $4,841 for each locomotive
for each month any of the five locomotives are operated outside of
the restricted area for more than 10-plus consecutive days, outside
the Baton Rouge nonattainment area and the Exception area (for
other than maintenance).
CA7: Each of the five locomotives will operate in Baton Rouge area
or the Exception area for 10 years after the date each engine was
placed back into service.
1 : Update the March 20, 2009, fees rule to reflect the amount of fees
necessary for the program to recover the costs of implementing and
enforcing the program.
2. Prioritize and update existing oil and gas production emission
factors that are in greatest need of improvement and develop emission
factors for key oil and gas production processes that do not currently
have emission factors.
2: Require regions to keep critical planning information up to date
using the most effective method available and avoid unnecessary
duplication.
1 . Update the 2004 fees rule to increase the amount of the Motor
Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program costs it can recover.
2-2: Develop a systematic approach to identify which states have
outdated or inconsistent memoranda of agreement; renegotiate and
update those memoranda of agreement using the memorandum of
agreement template; and secure the active involvement and final,
documented concurrence of headquarters to ensure national
consistency.
2-4: Establish criteria and procedures outlining what chemicals or
classes of chemicals will undergo risk assessments for low-level and
cumulative exposure. Periodically update and revise risk assessment
tools and models with latest research and technology developments.
Planned
Completion
Date
09/30/20
09/30/20
01/31/17
09/30/18
09/30/16
12/31/18
09/30/17
12/31/17
70
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
CSB Reports With Unimplemented Recommendations With Future Dates
Report Title/No.
U.S Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board Needs to Complete More
Timely Investigations (13-P-0337)
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board Did Not Take Effective
Corrective Actions on Prior Audit
Recommendations (11-P-0115)
Report
Date
07/30/13
02/15/11
Unimplemented Recommendation
4. Develop and implement a succession or retention policy to help with any future
effects of the turnover rate on CSB's mission.
3. Follow up with Congress on the CSB request for clarification of its statutory
mandate. Upon receipt of the response, develop a plan to describe and address
the investigative gap, address prior audit recommendations and request the
necessary resources to meet CSB's statutory mandate.
Planned
Completion
Date
12/31/16
12/31/16
71
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
Appendix 4—Peer Reviews Conducted
Audits/Evaluations
The Social Security Administration OIG completed an external peer review of the EPA OIG audit
organization (which includes the EPA OIG's Office of Audit and Office of Program Evaluation)
covering the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, and issued its report on June 12, 2015. The
review was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. The external peer review of the EPA OIG audit organization
stated that the EPA OIG audit organization's system of quality control was suitably designed and
complied with to provide the EPA OIG with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in
conformity with applicable professional standards in all material respects, and the EPA OIG
received a rating of pass.
The EPA OIG conducted an external peer review of the system of quality control for the audit
organization of the U.S. Department of Education OIG. Our review covered the period April 1,
2012, through March 31, 2015. We conducted the review in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards and guidelines established by the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency. We provided a final report to the U.S. Department of Education OIG on
October 27, 2015. In our opinion, the U.S. Department of Education OIG audit organization's
system of quality control in effect for the year ending March 31, 2015, was suitably designed and
complied with to provide that OIG with reasonable assurance of performance and reporting in
conformity with applicable professional standards in all material respects. The U.S. Department of
Education OIG received an external peer review rating of pass.
Investigations
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIG completed a mandated Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency quality assurance review of the EPA OIG Office of
Investigations and issued its report on December 2, 2014. The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation identified no deficiencies and found internal safeguards and management
procedures compliant with quality standards.
In November 2014, an EPA OIG inspection team began performing a quality assurance review of
the U.S. Department of Education OIG Investigation Services office per the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. We issued our final report on September 15, 2015.
Overall, in our opinion, the system of internal safeguards and management procedures for the
investigative function of the Department of Education OIG for the year ended October 30, 2014,
were in compliance with standards established by the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency and Attorney General guidelines.
72
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2015—March 31, 2016
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: (617) 918-1466
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) 487-2363
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Offices
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) 665-2249
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) 814-2359
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) 947-4527
Investigations: (415) 947-8711
Seattle
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Code OIG-173
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit/Evaluation: (206) 553-6906
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
Winchester
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
200 S. Jefferson Street, Room 314
P.O. Box 497
Winchester, TN 37398
Investigations: (423) 240-7735
73
-------
------- |