^tDsr-%
• B \
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
14-P-0270
May 29, 2014
Why We Did This Review
The purpose of this review was
to determine the use of
procedures by the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), other federal
agencies and states to manage
the communication of and
appropriate action on
laboratory data determined to
be fraudulent. We refer to this
as a due diligence process.
The EPA relies on external
laboratories to provide
environmental testing data and
results. Intentionally falsified or
fraudulent data can impact the
public's trust in the EPA and
could have serious implications
for protecting human health
and the environment from
hazardous or toxic substances.
The report addresses the
following EPA goals or
cross-cutting strategies:
•	Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
•	Addressing climate change
and improving air quality.
•	Protecting America's
waters.
For further information,
contact our public affairs office
at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2014/
20140529-14-P-0270.pdf
EPA Has Not Implemented Adequate
Management Procedures to Address
Potential Fraudulent Environmental Data
What We Found
The EPA lacks a due diligence process for	The epa is not ensuring that
potential fraudulent environmental data. The	fraudulent laboratory
agency has three policies and procedures	environmental data is being
that address how to respond to instances of	communicated to appropriate
fraudulent data, but they are all out of date or	program offices and data
unimplemented. Our survey of EPA regional	users, reviewed, and analyzed
ti	* „	for its i in pact on human health
offices disclosed that a majority of	... ^ . .
, .	x.	and the environment.
respondents were unaware there was a
policy, and approximately 50 percent expressed the need for such policies and
procedures. The EPA plans to issue revised policy by fiscal year 2017. Until then,
unimplemented and out-of-date policies and procedures—and lack of EPA staff
awareness of those policies that do exist—create risk that EPA staff will fail to
properly communicate the information regarding fraudulent data to appropriate
program offices and data users; review and analyze the data for potential impacts
to human health and the environment; or review and amend, if possible, past
environmental decisions that were based on fraudulent data. According to staff of
the federal agencies and states we contacted in this evaluation, they also do not
have formal, written due diligence processes.
Further, the EPA does not consistently notify the states when laboratory due
diligence activities can begin during or following a fraud investigation that affects
state environmental programs. The agency does not have a policy on
communicating case information with the states and other regulating parties
during investigations, due to the sensitive nature of investigations which could be
jeopardized, and because rights of innocents could be threatened and suspects
could be unfairly maligned in an ongoing fraud investigation. As a result,
laboratory fraud cases may not include a due diligence review. In such cases,
potentially negative impacts to human health and the environment due to
fraudulent lab data could go undetected.
Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions
We recommend that the agency incorporate a process to respond to instances of
fraudulent data into its current policy until the revised policy is issued. We also
recommend that the agency state the details of a laboratory fraud due diligence
process in its new policy. Further, we recommend that the agency develop
guidelines outlining the response when fraudulent laboratory data is discovered
in ongoing criminal investigations. We recommend training on laboratory fraud
due diligence processes and procedures for all relevant staff. The EPA agreed
with our recommendations and we agreed with the EPA's proposed corrective
actions.

-------