# \
.,SE2:
%
^ PrO^
Office of Inspector General
Report of Audit
PERFORMANCE
PARTNERSHIP
GRANTS
Region 6 Oversight of
Performance Partnership Grants
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282
September 21, 1999

-------
Inspector General Division
Conducting the Audit
Region Covered
Program Offices Involved
Central Audit Division
Dallas, Texas
Region 6
Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division
Water Quality Protection
Division
Compliance Assistance and
Enforcement Division
Auditors Conducting Audit:
Dan Howard
David Johnson

-------
September 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region 6 Oversight of Performance Partnership Grants
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282
FROM: Bennie S. Salem
Divisional Inspector General
TO:	Gregg Cooke
Regional Administrator
Region 6
Attached is our report entitled Region 6 Oversight of Performance Partnership Grants.
We discussed our findings with your staff and issued a draft report. We summarized your
comments in the final report and included your complete response in Appendix I.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Order 2750, you, as the
action official, are required to provide this office a written response to the audit report within 90
days of the final audit report date. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the
response date, reference to specific milestone dates will assist in deciding whether to close this
report.
This audit report contains findings that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
identified and corrective actions OIG recommends. This audit report represents the opinion of
OIG, and the findings in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this audit report will be made by EPA managers in accordance
with established EPA audit resolution procedures.
We have no objections to the release of this report to the public. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (913) 551-7831 or Dan Howard, Auditor, at 5-3160. Please refer
to the report number on all related correspondence.
Attachment

-------
^^^^^^^^^^^^iegioi^K)^rsigh^)n*erformanc^*artnershij^rrants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION	The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1997
strategic plan states that the President's "performance
partnership" reinvention initiative provides for increased
flexibility in how a program is run in exchange for increased
accountability for results. Performance partnerships are
EPA's new approach to working with states and tribes
(recipients) to better implement environmental programs
and achieve environmental results. A performance
partnership grant (PPG) is a critical tool for EPA's
implementation of performance partnerships. Both
performance partnerships and PPGs represent a significant
shift in how EPA and its partners work together to address
human health and environmental protection.
OBJECTIVES	Our specific audit objectives were to answer the following
questions:
• Is Region 6 effectively implementing its PPG
program to ensure that recipients accomplish
overall PPG objectives?
Has Region 6 negotiated PPG work plans that
include adequate programmatic
accountability?
Does Region 6's oversight ensure that
recipients accomplish PPG work plan
objectives?
i
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
^egioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
RESULTS IN BRIEF
REGION 6
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE PPG PROGRAM
COULD BE IMPROVED
The Region could have been more effective in implementing
the PPG program to ensure that overall program goals and
objectives were accomplished. The PPG program's goals
are to reduce administrative burdens and costs, provide
flexibility, strengthen partnerships, and improve
environmental results. Some administrative savings have
occurred. However, flexibility has been limited,
partnerships need strengthening, and PPG work plans focus
primarily on program activities versus environmental results.
Oklahoma and Texas chose not to negotiate environmental
priorities and goals across grant programs with the Region.
Regional and State officials did not always agree on
individual roles and responsibilities. States have been
reluctant to provide reporting beyond what is in the national
databases without additional funding. As a result, all the
benefits that EPA thought the program would provide were
not realized in terms of accomplishing overall goals and
objectives. Further, Region and State staff could not
demonstrate whether the program had resulted in improved
environmental results and human health.
PPG WORK PLANS	The Region had not negotiated work plans that include
NEED BETTER	adequate programmatic accountability. The work plans did
ACCOUNTABILITY	not contain all core measures, did not clearly define all PPG
PROVISIONS	commitments, and were not finalized prior to the start of the
Oklahoma and Texas fiscal year. The Region did not
require all core measures be adopted in the agreements.
Further, Oklahoma and Texas did not consider that core
measures are required and stated that the Environmental
Council of States did not bind them to core measures. Also,
the two States have not been willing to commit to core
measures that cannot be drawn from existing databases.
Work plans were not always submitted timely and
negotiations were not always initiated and completed timely.
As a result, the Region and the two States cannot always
determine or demonstrate whether environmental
performance or improvements have been accomplished.
Additionally, without defining
11
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
commitments until well into the fiscal year, States'
programmatic accountability is limited.
REGION 6 OVERSIGHT	The Region did not, in all instances, ensure that PPG work
COULD BE IMPROVED	plan objectives were accomplished. The Region and Texas
were able to negotiate a multimedia enforcement
Memorandum of Understanding that did not limit the
Region's oversight capabilities, and work plan objectives
were clear. Barriers that hindered Regional oversight of
Oklahoma stemmed from limitations contained in the fiscal
1996 Umbrella Agreement with Oklahoma and clarity of
work plan objectives. Further, Regional oversight was not
always coordinated among programs. As a result, Regional
staff spent time and resources supporting several ways to
evaluate work plan objectives rather than on measuring or
determining environmental results.
RECOMMENDATIONS	We recommend that the Regional Administrator work with
the Region and its states to enhance and improve the
effectiveness of the current Regional PPG program. The
Region and its states should continue to identify areas
where administrative savings can be achieved and to
develop self assessment strategies which identify states'
overall highest priorities necessary to improve human health
and the environment. Further, the Region and its states
should highlight and communicate successful efforts to
improve partnerships, particularly enforcement partnerships.
In addition, the Region and its states should develop work
plans which commit to and clearly identify environmental
indicators, core performance measures, and describe
program activities related to appropriate environmental
statutes, regulations and EPA or state policies.
111
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
REGION 6 COMMENTS
AND OIG EVALUATION
^^^^^^^Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Region 6 generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations.
iv
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
^^^^^^^^^^^Jiegioi^K)^rsigh^)n*erformanc^*artnershij^rrants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTERS
1	INTRODUCTION	1
PURPOSE	1
BACKGROUND	2
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 	5
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 	5
2	REGION 6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PPG PROGRAM COULD BE IMPROVED 	7
PPG GUIDANCE DEFINES PROGRAM
PURPOSES AM) GOALS 	7
RECIPIENTS HAVE ACHIEVED SOME
ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS 	8
RECIPIENTS USE OF FLEXIBILITY HAS BEEN LIMITED	8
PPG WORK PLANS FOCUS PRIMARILY ON
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES VERSUS ENVIRONMENTAL
RESULTS 	10
PARTNERSHIPS SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED	11
CONCLUSION	12
RECOMMENDATIONS	12
REGION 6 COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 	13
3	PPG WORK PLANS NEED BETTER ACCOUNTABILITY
PROVISIONS	14
REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE DEFINE
WORK PLAN COMPONENTS	14
WORK PLANS DID NOT CONTAIN ALL
CORE MEASURES	15
OKLAHOMA'S PPG COMMITMENTS WERE NOT CLEARLY
DEFINED 	17
WORK PLANS WERE NOT FINALIZED PRIOR
TO STATES' FISCAL YEAR	17
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
CONCLUSION	18
RECOMMENDATIONS	18
REGION 6 COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 	19
4 REGION 6 OVERSIGHT COULD BE IMPROVED	21
PPG GUIDANCE REFERS TO STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIPS	21
REGION 6 AND TEXAS WERE ABLE TO AGREE ON
ENFORCEMENT ROLES 	21
LIMITATIONS IN OKLAHOMA AGREEMENT HINDER
REGIONAL OVERSIGHT 	22
OKLAHOMA'S UNCLEAR OBJECTIVES FURTHER LIMITED
REGIONAL OVERSIGHT 	23
REGIONAL OVERSIGHT WAS NOT EFFECTIVELY COORDINATED ... 23
CONCLUSION	24
RECOMMENDATIONS	25
REGION 6 COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 	25
EXHIBIT
1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 	26
APPENDICES
I	AGENCY RESPONSE 	29
II	ABBREVIATIONS 	33
III	DISTRIBUTION	34
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE	The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1997
strategic plan states that the President's "performance
partnership" reinvention initiative provides for increased
flexibility in how a program is run in exchange for increased
accountability for results. Performance partnerships are
EPA's new approach to working with states and tribes
(recipients) to better implement environmental programs
and achieve environmental results. A performance
partnership grant (PPG) is a critical tool for EPA's
implementation of performance partnerships. Both
performance partnerships and PPGs represent a significant
shift in how EPA and its partners work together to address
human health and environmental protection.
This audit is part of the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
PPGs and National Environmental Performance Partnership
System (NEPPS) Issue Area Plan dated September 1998.
OIG made a commitment to assess EPA's PPG program
implementation and determine what improvements were
needed to ensure EPA implemented the program effectively
and achieved environmental results.
Our specific audit objectives were to answer the following
questions:
• Is Region 6 effectively implementing its PPG
program to ensure that recipients accomplish overall
PPG objectives?
Has Region 6 negotiated PPG work plans that
include adequate programmatic accountability?
Does Region 6's oversight ensure that recipients
accomplish PPG work plan objectives?
1
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
BACKGROUND
PPG Authority and Purpose	Beginning in fiscal 1996, EPA received authority to award
PPGs. PPGs were part of EPA's effort to improve how
EPA and its partners protect the environment. A PPG is a
multi-program grant made to a recipient from funds
allocated and otherwise available for a specific
environmental program. PPGs provide recipients with the
option to combine grant funds from two or more specific
environmental grants (such as those authorized under the
Clean Water Act or those used to implement the Clean Air
Act) into one or more PPGs. Recipients may then use PPGs
to fund activities that are within the scope of the programs
included in their PPG. Recipients may include any of the 17
eligible grant programs in their PPG.
EPA developed PPGs as a response to recommendations
from various internal and external stakeholders to increase
recipient flexibility, achieve administrative savings by
streamlining the grants process, strengthen EPA
partnerships with recipients, and help recipients improve
environmental results. These recommendations formed the
basis for the PPG program's purposes and goals.
PPGs are intended to improve the performance of
environmental protection programs by providing recipients
with greater flexibility in how they manage and implement
programs that use grant funds. This increased flexibility will
enable recipients to better coordinate and integrate activities
which were fragmented in many statutes, regulations, and
programs. PPGs should facilitate funding of activities such
as pollution prevention, multimedia permits and
enforcement, and community-based environmental
protection. PPGs are also intended to reduce an
administrative burden and ultimately, improve
environmental results.
EPA designed PPGs to encourage improved environmental
results by linking program goals with program outcomes
and by increasing the use of environmental indicators and
program performance measures. Environmental indicators
2
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
provide information on the environmental conditions,
trends, and results. Program performance measures gauge
progress in meeting agreed upon goals. Indicators and
performance measures create a foundation for better
reporting, monitoring, and assessment of state, tribal, and
national environmental conditions.
All PPGs are required to contain a legally binding set of
work plan commitments. PPG program commitments may
be contained in categorical work plans, in a performance
partnership agreement, or in a tribal environmental
agreement (we will refer to all of these documents as PPG
work plans). A categorical work plan would be the same as
that prepared for a categorical grant. A performance
partnership agreement is a negotiated agreement between a
region and a state that describes jointly developed goals,
objectives, and priorities and may include work plan
commitments that are the basis for the PPG. The
agreements typically include the strategies to be used in
meeting the PPG commitments, the roles and responsibilities
of the state and EPA, and the measures to be used in
assessing progress.
Two of five states in Region 6, Oklahoma and Texas, had
PPGs in 1998 and 1999. Texas had a Performance
Partnership Agreement (PPA) that included its work plan.
Oklahoma had a fiscal 1996 Environmental Performance
Partnership Agreement (Umbrella Agreement) and used a
Focus Plan as its annual work plan for fiscal 1998 and 1999.
Louisiana entered into a PPA in February 1998, with the
goal of working toward a PPG. Arkansas is in the early
stages of negotiation of a PPG.
PPG Program Organizational	EPA developed interim guidance in 1996 and 1998 that
Structure	served as the operating guidance for states and tribes
interested in applying for PPGs. Regional offices were to
use this operating guidance to develop and implement their
PPG programs.
The Region has designated a Mentor Director for each
3
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Relationship between PPGs
and the National
Environmental Performance
Partnership System
state. The Mentor Director for Oklahoma is the Division
Director for Water and the Mentor Director for Texas is the
Division Director for the Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division. The Region also had a work group
made up of the project officers for each media included in
each PPG. The negotiations and oversight are media
specific, with project officers responsible for their program.
On May 17, 1995, state and EPA leaders signed a Joint
Commitment to Reform Oversight and Create a National
Environmental Performance Partnership System. The
objective of this agreement was to accelerate the transition
to a new working relationship between EPA and states-one
which reflected the advancement made in environmental
protection over the preceding 2 decades by both states and
EPA. In addition, the agreement recognized that existing
policies and management approaches must be modified to
ensure continued environmental progress.
EPA PPG guidance, dated October 6, 1998, states that the
key goals that this new partnership agreement shares with
PPGs are:
To allow States and EPA to achieve
improved environmental results by directing
scarce public resources toward the highest
priority, highest value activities; to provide
States with greater flexibility to achieve
those results; to improve public
understanding of environmental conditions
and choices; and to enhance accountability to
the public and taxpayers.
Under performance partnerships, EPA and its partners are
expected to achieve more integrated environmental
management and enhanced environmental results. This
new partnership should also enable EPA and its partners to
move progressively beyond relying on numbers of permits
issued, inspections made, or other similar measures, to
4
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
^^^^^^^Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
performance measures that more directly reflect changes in
environmental quality.
SCOPE AND	We performed our audit in accordance with Government
METHODOLOGY	Auditing Standards (1994 Revision) issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. Our review
included an analysis of program records and other auditing
procedures we considered necessary. We conducted our
fieldwork from January through July 1999. Our review
included Oklahoma and Texas fiscal 1998 and 1999 PPGs,
work plans, end-of-year reports, and the proposed
Oklahoma fiscal 2000 work plan. We performed our
fieldwork at Region 6, the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
See Exhibit 1 for scope and methodology details.
PRIOR AUDIT	OIG has not issued any audit reports related to the Region's
COVERAGE	PPG program implementation. However, OIG conducted a
joint management assistance review with Regional staff of
Texas 1997 PPA/PPG. As a result of the management
assistance review, OIG and regional staff suggested that the
State and Region 6 staff: (1) document reasons for not
including a core measure and obtain approval from
headquarters, (2) work toward performance measures
which are better indicators of environmental outcomes, (3)
assure that the PPA is clear on all activities that are to be
performed, (4) share information openly, (5) agree on a
Consolidated Enforcement Memorandum of
Understanding, and (6) resolve $2 million in unexpended
funding.
In 1996, OIG issued three special reports on demonstration
grants awarded to North Dakota, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire. These grants were predecessors to PPGs and
contained similar objectives including providing states with
5
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
more flexibility to address their priorities. The
demonstration grant audits found that: (1) regional internal
turf battles and statutory restrictions were barriers to
moving resources to address priority environmental
problems; (2) states still used activity-based performance
measures due to inadequate guidance or incentive; and (3)
some measures were not time-specific, quantifiable, or
adequate to provide accountability. The reports found
positive aspects of the demonstration grants including some
administrative efficiencies and increased cross-media
enforcement activities.
The U.S. General Accounting Office issued
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: Collaborative EPA-
State Effort Needed to Improve New Performance
Partnership System, dated June 21, 1999. The audit found
that the development of outcome measures has been
impeded by an absence of baseline data, inherent difficulty
in quantifying certain results, difficulty of linking program
activities to environmental results, and considerable
resources needed for high-quality performance
measurement. The audit also found that EPA's oversight of
states participating in the new system had not been reduced
as anticipated. Among the factors complicating EPA's
oversight was: (1) statutory and/or regulatory requirements
in some cases prescribed the kind of oversight required of
states by EPA, (2) reluctance by EPA staff to reduce
oversight without the measures in place to ensure that
environmental quality would not be compromised, and (3)
the inherent difficulty in "letting go" on the part of some
EPA staff that have implemented the existing EPA-state
oversight arrangement for years. The audit also identified
a number of reported benefits associated with the new
system that included improving communication about
program priorities between EPA and state program staff
and allowing states the option to shift resources and funds
under the PPG program.
6
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
CHAPTER 2
REGION 6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PPG PROGRAM COULD BE IMPROVED
The Region could have been more effective in
implementing the PPG program to ensure that overall
program goals and objectives were accomplished. The PPG
program goals are to reduce administrative burdens and
costs, provide flexibility, strengthen partnerships, and
improve environmental results. Some administrative
savings have occurred. However, flexibility has been
limited, partnerships need strengthening, and PPG work
plans focus primarily on program activities versus
environmental results. Oklahoma and Texas chose not to
negotiate environmental priorities and goals across grant
programs with the Region. Regional and State officials did
not always agree on individual roles and responsibilities.
States have been reluctant to provide reporting beyond
what is in the national databases without additional
funding. As a result, all the benefits that EPA thought the
program would provide were not realized in terms of
accomplishing overall goals and objectives. Further,
Region and State staff could not demonstrate whether the
program had resulted in improved environmental results
and human health.
PPG GUIDANCE	PPG guidance, dated July 1996 and October 6, 1998,
DEFINES PROGRAM	describes four goals of the PPG program.
PURPOSES AND GOALS
Administrative Savings. Recipients and EPA can reduce
administrative burdens and costs by reducing the number of
grant applications, budgets, work plans, and reports.
Flexibility. Recipients will have the flexibility to address
their highest environmental priorities, while continuing to
address core program requirements.
7
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Strengthened Partnerships. EPA will develop partnerships
with recipients where both parties share the same
environmental and program goals and deploy their unique
resources and abilities to jointly accomplish those goals.
Improved Environmental Results. PPGs will encourage
recipients to improve environmental results and more
effectively link program activities with environmental
goals and program outcomes; and develop innovative
pollution prevention, ecosystem, and community-based
strategies.
RECIPIENTS HAVE
ACHIEVED SOME
ADMINISTRATIVE
SAVINGS
Oklahoma and Texas have achieved some administrative
savings in terms of reduced reporting, through the filing of
only one grant application and one Financial Status Report
(FSR) versus numerous grant applications and FSRs. The
Region and the two States have worked together to identify
reports that could be eliminated. Texas officials noted that
reporting requirements had been reduced from 250 to
approximately 140 under the PPA and that they could use
their legislative strategy document for the PPA document.
Oklahoma officials used their Focus Plan to serve both the
purposes of a work plan for EPA and providing measures
for their State budget. However, both States still had to
maintain specific cost information because of state
legislative requirements.
RECIPIENT USE OF	Oklahoma and Texas have not fully achieved the flexibility
FLEXIBILITY HAS BEEN	goal of the PPG program. Recipients have the flexibility to
LIMITED	address their highest environmental priorities, while
continuing to address core program requirements.
However, the Region, Oklahoma, and Texas had not
negotiated environmental goals and objectives across grant
programs. Oklahoma had never moved funds from one
program to another to address its highest environmental
priorities. Texas had only shifted carryover funds.
8	Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Regional officials commented that under the 1996
guidance, states had options, and Oklahoma and Texas
chose not to negotiate environmental priorities across
programs. They also stated that there have been very
significant changes from the past, the program has evolved,
and the Region now has better guidance. An Oklahoma
official stated that under a prototype PPA, a state would do
a self assessment of its overall environmental goals to look
at the environmental problems of the state and write a
report about how the resources would be spent. However,
Oklahoma's reasons for entering into a PPA were primarily
to define the roles of the state and federal government and
administrative savings. The official further stated that the
fundamental reason for leaving money in a particular
media specific program is because certain fees support
certain specific media programs.
Texas submitted strategic plans that addressed
environmental priorities, but Regional officials stated that
these priorities were by media and not across different
programs. Further, the Region and State have not come to
a consensus on the overall State environmental priorities.
As a result, the Region and the State are determining the
priorities after the end of the fiscal year and have had
disagreements over how to spend carryover funds. Region
6 only required a Texas self assessment to justify the
shifting of unexpended funds for fiscal 1997 and 1998
individually, rather than a self assessment which would
identify the State's overall long-term environmental
priorities across programs. The Region and Texas have
negotiated shifts for unexpended funding for fiscal 1997
and 1998. However, for both years, agreement on how to
spend the carryover funds took nearly a year after the end
of the fiscal year (August 31). The Region approved the
fiscal 1997 carryover of $2.5 million on April 29, 1998,
and the 1998 carryover of $1.6 million on May 10, 1999.
Texas also submitted a request to shift projected
unexpended funding for fiscal 1999 to the Region in April.
To date, the Region has not approved a shift for fiscal
1999.
9
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Without determining priorities upfront, states may not be
addressing their highest overall environmental priorities.
For example, in a May 10, 1999 letter approving shifts for
unexpended funds to cover a backlog in wastewater permits
in Texas, a Regional official informed the State that it had
not met all fiscal 1998 performance measures. Several
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
authorization packages were overdue by more than several
years. Further, these same concerns were raised in the
Texas fiscal 1998 end-of-year report and the fiscal 1999
midyear report. In addition, Regional officials have raised
concerns that the air is getting worse within the State and
commented that the shifted funds were unexpended Air and
RCRA funds.
PPG WORK PLANS	While the Region has made some progress toward shifting
FOCUS PRIMARILY ON	state focus to program outcomes, the Texas PPA and the
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES	Oklahoma Focus Plan still concentrate primarily on
VERSUS	program outputs. PPGs encourage recipients to improve
ENVIRONMENTAL	environmental results and more effectively link program
RESULTS	activities with environmental goals and program outcomes
and develop innovative pollution prevention, ecosystem,
and community-based strategies. However, states have
been reluctant to provide reporting beyond what is in the
national data bases without additional funding. An
Oklahoma official commented that establishing
environmental indicators depends on the State receiving
additional funding.
Oklahoma and Texas have recently recognized the need for
establishment of better environmental indicators. Texas
recognized the need to improve its environmental
indicators and has established the State Environmental
Assessment group to develop the indicators. Regional
officials met with Oklahoma officials in October 1998 to
discuss the need to move toward environmental indicators
and, according to Regional officials, Oklahoma responded
that it would consider environmental indicators. A
Regional official pointed out that the proposed 2000 Focus
10
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Plan does include some environmental indicators. For
example, "By 2005, the number of young children with high
levels of lead in their blood will be significantly reduced
from the early 1990's."
The Region also recognized that it still has a need to work
with the two States to develop better environmental
indicators. A Regional official stated that "we believe that
some of the measures that Texas identified as environmental
indicators were misleading or were more in the line of
'efficiency' measures. Oklahoma did not even identify
outcome measures or environmental indicators. We
recognize we have a challenge in bringing this dimension to
the PPAs."
PARTNERSHIPS	Disagreements between the Region, Oklahoma, and Texas
SHOULD BE	have weakened the partnership for some programs. A goal
STRENGTHENED	of the PPG program is to develop partnerships with states
and tribes where both parties share the same environmental
and program goals and jointly deploy their unique
resources and abilities to accomplish those goals.
Oklahoma and Texas officials have expressed concerns
about the need for better coordination, the program still
being treated as if it were separate categorical grants, and
the disagreement over how to shift unexpended funds.
These disagreements are causing a rift in the partnership
for some programs.
The Region had disagreements with both States. The
Region and Oklahoma have had disagreements over the
roles and responsibilities of the two agencies, primarily for
enforcement. An Oklahoma official commented that the
partnership has been improved in every area except
enforcement. Officials from both States raised concerns
that the Region still wants to know how the money is spent
by media. The Region has had disagreements with Texas
over how to treat unexpended funds because they have not
come to a consensus on the same environmental and
program goals prior to development of the PPA.
11
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
CONCLUSION	Not all of the benefits that EPA thought the PPG program
would provide were realized in terms of seeing and
measuring environmental improvements. While Oklahoma
and Texas have achieved some administrative savings,
flexibility has been limited because the Region and the two
States chose not to negotiate the States' highest
environmental priorities. Further, state work plans
continue to focus primarily on program activities versus
environmental results and, therefore, improved
environmental results and human health could not be
determined or demonstrated. As a result of disagreements
over the shifting of funds and Regional and state roles and
responsibilities, the PPG goal of developing partnerships to
share environmental and program goals needs to be
strengthened.
RECOMMENDATIONS	We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
2-1. Work with states to identify other areas where
additional administrative savings could be achieved.
2-2. Assist states in developing a self assessment strategy
and reach a consensus on the state's overall highest
environmental priorities.
2-3. Assist the Texas State Environmental Assessment
Group in the development of environmental
indicators.
2-4. Assist Oklahoma and Texas in developing and
reporting environmental indicators.
2-5. Assist Oklahoma in defining the direction the State
would like to go under the Performance Partnership
Program.
2-6. Highlight and communicate successful efforts to
improve partnerships throughout the Region,
particularly enforcement partnerships.
12
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
REGION 6 COMMENTS
AND OIG EVALUATION
The Region agreed with our findings and recommendations
and commented:
S We support the comments about the Texas
request to shift funds when core
commitments, such as RCRA authorization
activities, have not been completed. The
RCRA oversight reports have documented
that the State has not completed all RCRA
core commitments.
S We believe some of the measures that Texas
identified as environmental indicators were
misleading or were more in line of
"efficiency" measures. Oklahoma did not
even identify outcome measures or
environmental indicators. We recognize we
have a challenge in bringing this dimension
to the PPAs.
13
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
CHAPTER 3
PPG WORK PLANS NEED BETTER
ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS
The Region had not negotiated work plans that include
adequate programmatic accountability. The work plans did
not contain all core measures, did not clearly define all
PPG commitments, and were not finalized prior to the start
of the Oklahoma and Texas fiscal year. The Region did
not require all core measures be adopted in the agreements.
Further, Oklahoma and Texas did not consider that core
measures are required and stated that the Environmental
Council of States (ECOS) did not bind them to core
measures. Also, the two States have not been willing to
commit to core measures that cannot be drawn from
existing databases. Work plans were not always submitted
timely and negotiations were not always initiated and
completed timely. As a result, the Region and the two
States cannot always determine nor demonstrate whether
environmental performance or improvements have been
accomplished. Additionally, without defining
commitments until well into the fiscal year, States'
programmatic accountability is limited.
The 1996 PPG guidance outlines PPG work plan
requirements as the basis for the management and
evaluation of performance under the grant agreement. The
PPG work plan should include core program commitments
(goals, performance measures, program activities) derived
from statutes, regulations, and standing legal agreements
between EPA and recipients. Performance measures that
are PPG program commitments must be time-specific,
measurable, quantifiable, and verifiable. In addition, EPA
encourages all recipients to adopt outcome and output
oriented performance measures that track program
performance and environmental conditions and trends.
REGULATIONS AND
GUIDANCE DEFINE
WORK PLAN
COMPONENTS
14
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
^^^^^^^Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Appropriate accountability provisions are essential in
designing the new PPG program. The PPG guidance states
that a fundamental goal of EPA's efforts to design
accountability provisions into PPGs is to begin moving
federal, state, and tribal programs toward the use of results-
oriented measures of environmental and program
performances that are understandable and meaningful to the
public. Further, the work plan should also establish
procedures (e.g., midyear and end-of-year reviews,
reporting requirements, joint activities) that EPA and the
recipient will use for evaluating accomplishments,
discussing progress, and making adjustments to meet
milestones. The PPG guidance states that EPA should work
with recipients to balance the need to maintain core
program requirements with the need to incorporate program
flexibility and move toward program performance measures
and environmental indicators.
Core performance measures are a limited set of national
measures designed to help gauge progress toward
protection of the environment and human health, as well as
provide a national picture of the status of the environment.
EPA and ECOS developed core performance measures to
help focus EPA and state attention on improving how they
measured the effectiveness of their environmental
protection efforts.
WORK PLANS DID NOT
CONTAIN ALL CORE
MEASURES
The fiscal 1998 and 1999 Oklahoma and Texas agreements
did not contain all the core performance measures.
National core performance measures, which are to be
incorporated in state agreements, were agreed to by EPA
and ECOS and adopted for fiscal 1998 and only slightly
modified for fiscal 1999. EPA and ECOS agreed to fiscal
2000 core performance measures in April 1999, which are
to be used in the fiscal 2000 agreements. Oklahoma and
Texas did not consider that core measures are required and
have claimed that ECOS did not represent them and cannot
bind them.
15
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
The Oklahoma agreements did not contain all the core
measures. Oklahoma has been very reluctant to make
changes to the Focus Plan; therefore, Regional program
staff and their counterparts in Oklahoma developed matrices
and addendums to the Plan. These matrices and addendums
include only some of the core measures because Oklahoma
would not agree to all the core measures, according to
Regional officials. Further, these matrices and addendums
were negotiated at the program level, and Oklahoma's
senior management did not consider them to be binding. An
Oklahoma official commented that they did not want to
commit to expand the reporting requirement beyond what is
in the delegation agreements. A Regional official
commented in a letter dated September 1998, that the fiscal
1999 Focus Plan did not address the core performance
measures, nor did it stipulate specific objectives or
milestones that will be achieved to address the core
performance measures.
Oklahoma submitted a draft Focus Plan for fiscal 2000 with
significant changes in April 1999, which is still under
negotiation. The Plan does provide an attachment that lists
all the core measures. Changes to the Oklahoma Focus Plan
for fiscal 2000 were the result of internal State pressures
and not a result of Regional actions. The State Office of
Finance required performance measures because of a law
passed by the State Legislature.
Further, a joint management assistance review conducted
by the Region and the Office of Inspector General, dated
April 8, 1998, noted that the Texas 1998 PPA did not
include all core measures. For example, core measures for
RCRA and core measures for Air were not included. The
1999 PPA still did not contain these core measures.
16
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
OKLAHOMA'S PPG	The Oklahoma Focus Plan for 1998 and 1999 was mainly a
COMMITMENTS WERE	listing of job descriptions that did not clearly define PPG
NOT CLEARLY	commitments. Oklahoma has been very reluctant to make
DEFINED	changes to the Focus Plan; therefore, the Region has
attempted to get what it needed though matrices and
addendums. These matrices and addendums provide more
detail; however, Oklahoma senior management did not
consider the matrices and addendums to be binding
documents. According to Region program staff, they do
not use the Focus Plan to determine if Oklahoma is
meeting its commitments. Regional and State officials
want the fiscal 2000 Focus Plan to be just one document
that defines PPG commitments, thereby eliminating the
matrices and addendums.
WORK PLANS WERE	The Region and the two States have not defined work plan
NOT FINALIZED PRIOR	commitments until well into the States' new fiscal year.
TO STATES' FISCAL	Work plan commitments are the programmatic basis for the
YEAR	PPG award and consist of environmental indicators,
performance measures, and descriptions of program
activities. By not defining these commitments until well
into the new fiscal year, the Region and States cannot
ensure that the environmental commitments will be
accomplished.
The Oklahoma draft Focus Plan for fiscal 2000, received
by the Region in April 1999, had not been formally
negotiated as of the date of our review. Negotiations for
fiscal 1999 were not started until after the start of
Oklahoma's fiscal year. A Regional official, in a
September 25, 1998 letter (3 months into the State's new
fiscal year), commented that he had not received copies of
the 1999 Focus Plan until mid to late July. He was
concerned that copies should have been sent to the Region
for review no later than May 1, 1998, prior to the State's
new fiscal year. He commented that this resulted in not
having an agreed upon document for all programs. 40 CFR
Part 35 states that an applicant should submit a complete
17
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
^^^^^^^Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
application at least 60 days before the start of the budget
period.
The fiscal 1999 Texas PPA, revised January 1999, was not
issued until 4 months into the new fiscal year.
CONCLUSION	As a result of the lack of core measures, the Region and the
two States cannot always demonstrate the progress toward
protection of the environment and human health nor
provide a Regional picture of the status of the environment.
Core measures were developed to help focus EPA and state
attention on improving how the effectiveness of their
environmental protection efforts was measured.
Without clearly defining commitments until well into the
fiscal year, States' accountability is limited. Also, it is not
clear what the Region monitors to ensure that
environmental improvements are accomplished.
RECOMMENDATIONS	We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
3-1. Work with Oklahoma to ensure that the final version
of the fiscal 2000 and future Focus Plans contain all
applicable core measures and are clear on how the
measures will be addressed.
3-2. Require that all PPG work plans contain and address
all applicable core measures.
3-3. Work with Oklahoma and Texas earlier in the
process to negotiate the work plans. Meet prior to
States' development of the work plans to discuss
expectations.
3-4. Require timely submittal of work plan proposals and
assure that negotiations are completed before the
start of the fiscal year.
18
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Region 6 provided comments to clarify portions of the
REGION 6 COMMENTS	report, and we have incorporated these comments and
AND OIG EVALUATION	modified the report as appropriate.
Region 6 generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations. For RCRA, the Region commented that
it supports the comments in the report about delays in
finalizing negotiated work plan commitments. It further
commented that it is initiating discussions with each State
at an earlier date than in previous years, to complete work
plan negotiations in a more timely manner. For example,
the State of Oklahoma fiscal 2000 RCRA work plan was
approved by EPA on August 13, 1999, 2 months sooner
than the approval for fiscal 1999. The State of Texas fiscal
2000 RCRA work plan is near approval. As you are aware,
the Texas fiscal 2000 program year begins on September 1,
1999. However, the Region also commented that:
-	The presentation of conclusions regarding
Accountability Provisions (Chapter 3)
contains some broad statements that are not
necessarily true in all programs in both
States. This chapter focuses on our track
record regarding core measures, but does not
adequately recognize the effort we make to
assure that all statutory requirements are
addressed and committed to.
-	Also, we disagree with the sentence that
states, "Negotiations of work plans were not
initiated timely, and time frames for the
process were not established." We typically
do a good job of issuing HQ and Regional
guidance as early as possible in the spring
(thus starting the negotiation process). We
have an established date for submittal of
applications and a goal of awarding funds
within 90 days of their receipt in the Region.
19
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
However, this may not have been reflected in
Oklahoma's case for fiscal years (FY) 1998
and 1999 since Oklahoma requested that the
grant cycle coincide with their State FY. In
order to be responsive to the State's needs,
this moved their schedule up by three months
and may have caused much confusion at the
State and EPA. We acknowledge that we
often are still negotiating well into the first
quarter ... but, it is not because we have no
established time frames .... it is because we
often miss those deadline for a wide variety
of causes.
20
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
CHAPTER 4
REGION 6 OVERSIGHT COULD BE IMPROVED
The Region did not, in all instances, ensure that PPG work
plan objectives were accomplished. The Region and Texas
were able to negotiate a multimedia enforcement
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that did not limit
the Region's oversight capabilities, and work plan
objectives were clear. Barriers that hindered Regional
oversight of Oklahoma stemmed from limitations contained
in the fiscal 1996 Umbrella Agreement and clarity of work
plan objectives. Further, Regional oversight was not
always coordinated among programs. As a result, Regional
staff spent time and resources supporting several ways to
evaluate work plan objectives rather than on measuring or
determining environmental results.
PPG GUIDANCE REFERS	The PPG guidance refers to strengthening partnerships
TO STRENGTHENING	between EPA and recipients. NEPPS emphasizes the need
PARTNERSHIPS	to reduce EPA oversight or use differential oversight and
increase technical assistance. However, neither stated that
EPA should eliminate its oversight. An important aspect of
the PPG program is for regions to determine the
appropriate amount of oversight needed while providing
the maximum amount of flexibility for recipients to
accomplish environmental results. The PPG work plan is
the key document holding the recipient responsible, and
regions must ensure that those commitments in the work
plan are accomplished and adequately documented.
REGION 6 AND TEXAS	The joint MAR, issued in April 1998, recommended that
WERE ABLE TO AGREE	the Region's Compliance Assurance and Enforcement
ON ENFORCEMENT	Division and Texas negotiate a workable MOU that had
ROLES	been committed to in the fiscal 1997 PPA, dated October
1996. As a result, the Region and Texas were able to
negotiate a multimedia enforcement MOU, dated April
21
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
1999, that is much less restrictive than the Oklahoma
Umbrella Agreement.
LIMITATIONS IN	Regional oversight of Oklahoma has been hindered by
OKLAHOMA	enforcement limitations contained in the fiscal 1996
AGREEMENT HINDER	Umbrella Agreement. The Umbrella Agreement is still in
REGIONAL OVERSIGHT	place and has never been updated. The Umbrella
Agreement limits the Region's ability to perform oversight
and implement Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance guidance. According to Regional officials, there
was a push in 1996 by Oklahoma and senior management
in the Region to sign the Umbrella Agreement so that it
would be the first to be signed. Regional officials
commented that the Region made a mistake in approving
the Umbrella Agreement because of the limitation of the
Region's oversight role, specifically the authority for over-
filing and inspections. According to a Regional official,
based on the previously negotiated delegation agreements
for various programs, the Umbrella Agreement incorrectly
defined the roles of the Region and the State, since it
contradicted the delegation agreements. The State
contended that the roles listed in the Umbrella Agreement
are all-inclusive (if it is not listed here it does not apply).
Regional officials commented that they are now living with
this agreement and they have been talking for over a year
about renegotiating it. The officials believe issues with the
Umbrella Agreement are hurting the Region and State
relationship.
Regional officials stated that they had a side agreement to
negotiate a multimedia enforcement MOU which would
define what they would do under the PPA. Negotiations on
a multimedia MOU have been ongoing for the past 2 V2
years. Therefore, Regional enforcement personnel relied on
other than the Umbrella Agreement and Focus Plan for
authority to perform oversight inspections in Oklahoma.
Further, the Oklahoma enforcement partnership has been
weakened due to the dispute over roles and responsibilities
regarding inspection activities. As a result, Regional
22
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
officials believe that they cannot use the PPA, but must use
the delegation agreements and old categorical enforcement
MOUs, some of which go back to the 1980's to find
authority to perform oversight.
OKLAHOMA'S	Oklahoma Focus Plan objectives were not clear, which
UNCLEAR OBJECTIVES	made it difficult for the Region to determine State
FURTHER LIMITED	accomplishments. As a result, Regional program personnel
REGIONAL OVERSIGHT	relied on other than the Focus Plan to determine
accomplishments under the grant. Regional personnel
relied on matrices, addendums, old categorical enforcement
MOUs, statutory requirements, primacy agreements and
program memorandums of agreements with the State.
Documents used vary by program. For RCRA, the
matrices are used as what the State is held accountable for,
since at times the numbers in the Focus Plan may differ
from the matrix. For Air, both the Focus Plan and the
addendum are used. For the Underground Injection
Control and Public Water System programs, the project
officer does not rely on the Focus Plan, but instead on
regulations and primacy agreements. As a result, Regional
staff spent additional time and resources supporting several
ways to evaluate program performance rather than on
measuring or determining environmental results.
REGIONAL OVERSIGHT	Oklahoma and Texas officials have both raised concerns
WAS NOT	about the lack of coordination within the Region resulting in
EFFECTIVELY	their feeling they have to deal with multiple EPAs. Both
COORDINATED	States believed that Regional oversight is still performed the
same as under categorical grants. For example, mid-year
and end-of-year reviews were performed individually by
program and were not consolidated.
A Texas official commented that he had hoped that the
Region's reorganization would result in better coordination
and that the State would have one primary contact for the
23
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
grant. However, he commented that the Region is still
doing oversight separately by media. Texas officials were
concerned that the Region is back to doing separate media
midyear reviews that are not coordinated. They commented
that the Region is not consolidating its report process and
that Texas had consolidated its reporting. For example, he
commented that the State sends one consolidated report for
its midyear report, but the Region cannot coordinate
comments to the report. He stated that when the report
gets to the Region, it is torn apart by media and then
comments to the State are done by media.
The annual reports submitted by Oklahoma and Texas do
not give a good reflection of progress under the PPG.
Therefore, the Region relies on progress reporting by the
individual programs, database information, conference calls
by media, etc. Further, as discussed in the MAR of the
Texas PPG, the annual report does not always provide a
true picture of what is happening in the State. For
example, in reading the report one would find no
documentation that the Dallas-Ft. Worth area is not
meeting ozone attainment, and meets the requirements for a
bump-up from moderate to serious. Regional officials still
have similar concerns that environmental indicators are
misleading.
Regional program staffs do not believe that the Oklahoma
annual report told what was accomplished, and commented
that commitments were so vague in the Focus Plan, that the
annual report could not tell them what was accomplished.
CONCLUSION	Regional oversight has been fragmented by specific
program and is not effectively coordinated. As a result,
Regional staff spent time and resources supporting several
ways to evaluate work plan objectives rather than on
measuring or determining environmental results.
24
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
4-1. Work with Oklahoma to ensure that the final
versions of the fiscal 2000 and future Focus Plans
are clear on how measures will be addressed.
4-2. Renegotiate the Oklahoma Umbrella Agreement or
enter into an enforcement MOU that clearly defines
the oversight roles and does not inappropriately limit
EPA's authority.
4-3. Work toward a more unified approach to oversight
by:
S Developing a more unified oversight
strategy among the Regional staff to
ensure that the States accomplish the
PPG work plan objectives.
S Working with Oklahoma and Texas
to develop an end-of-year report that
better reflects the environmental
outcomes of the PPG.
REGION 6 COMMENTS
AND OIG EVALUATION
Region 6 generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations.
25
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
EXHIBIT 1
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Our first objective was to determine if Region 6 effectively implemented its PPG program to
ensure that recipients accomplished overall PPG objectives. Our review of the Region's PPG
program included:
S Interviewing PPG project officers for air, water, and hazardous waste programs,
regarding their roles and responsibilities related to the PPG program.
S Reviewing national and regional PPG guidance and policy to determine program
requirements and consistency between national and regional guidance.
S Interviewing regional program managers and staff regarding their knowledge of
PPG program goals and their implementation of those goals.
S Reviewing PPG project officers' performance standards to determine if they have
measures related to effectively implementing the program.
S Evaluating PPG program coordination and communication among regional and
state staff to determine if the Region's process was effective.
S Evaluating the Region's organizational placement of PPG program
responsibilities to determine whether the placement facilitated effective program
implementation.
S Interviewing a judgmental sample of state managers and program staff regarding
the Region's actions to effectively implement its PPG program and accomplish
program goals. We interviewed staff from ODEQ in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;
and the TNRCC in Austin, Texas.
S Reviewing information from the April 1998 MAR of the Texas 1997 PPG, and
1998 and 1999 work plans to determine if similar issues existed.
S Reviewing the Region's Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act report for
fiscal 1998 to determine whether the report disclosed any material weaknesses
related to the PPG program and the Region's actions to address those weaknesses.
26
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Our second objective was to determine if Region 6 negotiated PPG work plans that included
adequate programmatic accountability. Our review of recipients PPG work plans included:
S Reviewing national and regional guidance to determine the requirements for PPG
work plans.
S Interviewing Regional officials to determine its PPG work plan negotiation
process to determine how PPG work plan commitments were negotiated, who
participated, and how disputes were addressed.
S Reviewing a judgmental sample of state work plans for fiscal 1998 and 1999 to
determine whether required work plan elements were included such as core
performance measures. We also reviewed the work plans to determine whether
commitments included outcome measures and that those measures were
verifiable, measurable, quantifiable and time-specific. We reviewed the 1999
Texas work plan and evaluated whether suggestions from the April 1998
Management Assessment Review were implemented. We limited our review of
the work plans to commitments related to the air, water, and hazardous waste
programs.
S Interviewing regional program staff to determine whether they used work plans
and how they ensured the work plans had adequate programmatic accountability.
Our third objective was to determine if Region 6's oversight ensured that recipients
accomplished PPG work plan objectives. Our review of the Region's oversight of PPG work
plans and funds included:
S Reviewing PPG project officers' files to obtain information on the methods and
actions used to monitor and evaluate PPG activities.
S Interviewing regional staff and reviewing PPG project files to determine whether
the Region had an agreement with recipients on the extent of PPG oversight and
end-of-year reporting requirements.
S Interviewing regional program managers and staff regarding their oversight of
PPG commitments and whether they reviewed and used PPG end-of-year
reports.
S Evaluating a judgmental sample of PPG end-of-year reports for fiscal 1998 to
determine if recipients accomplished all work plan commitments and described
27
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
progress toward environmental goals. We reviewed the 1998 state end-of-year
reports for Oklahoma and Texas.
28
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
APPENDIX I
AGENCY RESPONSE
September 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to OIG's Draft Audit Report on Performance Partnership Grants
Audit Report Number 1999-000208-CAD6
The Office of Inspector General's (OIG) draft audit report on Performance Partnership
Grants, Region 6's Oversight of Performance Partnership Grants, report number 1999-000208-
CAD6, dated August 5, 1999, has been reviewed as requested. The review of the draft audit
report was made by the staff of the Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
(6EN), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), and Water Quality Protection
Division (6WQ). The comments for Region 6 on subject draft audit report are reflected on the
attachment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject draft audit report. If you have
any questions, please call me, or you can contact Jim Ealey, Audit Resolution Coordinator,
Resource Branch at (214) 665-6534.
FROM: Lynda F. Carroll
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Management (6MD)
/s/ by Lynda F. Carroll
TO:
Bennie S. Salem
Divisional Inspector General
Central Audit Division
Attachment
cc: Boyce	(60IG)
29
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Attachment
Page 1 of 3
The following comment are furnished in response to the OIG's draft audit report on
Performance Partnership Grants, Region 6's Oversight of Performance Partnership Grants, report
number 1999-000208-CAD6, dated August 5, 1999:
MULTIMEDIA PLANNING AND PERMITTING DIVISION (6PD)
The Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division concurs with the findings/conclusions
and recommendations presented in the report
RCRA Grants and Authorization Section (6PD-G)
The Executive Summary mentions that the work plans are not finalized prior to the start of
the Oklahoma and Texas fiscal years. This comment, to date, is correct; however, no
funds are awarded until program activities, equal to that level of funding, have been
negotiated with the States. This is the case for partial awards of forward funding. It
should be noted that forward funding is not often provided to the State of Texas.
We support the comments in the report about delays in finalizing negotiated work plan
commitments. We are initiating discussions with each State at an earlier date than in
previous years, to complete work plan negotiations in a more timely manner. For
example, the State of Oklahoma FY 2000 RCRA work plan was approved by EPA on
August 13, 1999, two months sooner than the approval for FY 1999. The State of Texas
FY 2000 RCRA work plan is near approval. As you are aware, the Texas FY 2000
program year begins on September 1, 1999.
For the State of Texas and Oklahoma, a work plan matrix is prepared that documents the
negotiated commitments. For the State of Oklahoma we relied on the Focus Plan in
addition to the prepared matrix. The State will revise the Focus document to reflect the
RCRA commitments for FY 2000.
We support the comments about the Texas request to shift funds when core commitments,
such as RCRA authorization activities, have not been completed. The RCRA oversight
reports have documented that the State has not completed all RCRA core commitments.
Pesticides Section (6PD-P)
We are concerned about the lack of availability to have specific goals and milestones in the
work plan. The only item that we were allowed to put into the work plan was the very
broad overall scope of the Pesticides in Groundwater State Management Plan (PMP)
program. No specific time lines or milestones were allowed. After the PMP Rule is
signed and published in the Federal Register, there will be some very specific actions and
dates that will have to be met, and it appears we will not be able to put them in the PPG
work plan.
30
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Attachment
Page 2 of 3
Regarding TNRCC's concern over media-specific oversight, the Pesticides program has to
do media-specific oversight because we have no connection to any of the other programs
that are covered under this PPG. This requires us to deal individually with the TNRCC
program personnel responsible for our program and to do specific oversight with those
people.
Air State and Tribal Operations Section (6PD-S)
The Air Program negotiated specific "outputs" linked to core performance measures in
accordance with our Office of Air and Radiation national guidance with both Oklahoma
and Texas. Since many air program core performance measures are very broad and long
range goals, certain activities are identified for states to complete on an annual basis to
meet an objective one to three years in the future. These priorities, as opposed to
outcome measures or "environmental priorities" are measurable in terms of State progress
from year to year. An example is, if a state is required by the Clean Air Act to submit a
State Implementation Plan two years from now, regulation development, monitoring,
modeling, etc., would be required in year one to meet the deadline in year two.
We believed some of the measures that Texas identified as environmental indicators were
misleading or were more in line of "efficiency" measures. Oklahoma did not even identify
outcome measures or environmental indicators. We recognize we have a challenge in
bringing this dimension to the PPAs.
Regarding the statement that we must rely on documents other than the PPA to ensure the
states accomplish PPG objectives that are not much different from categorical grants. The
whole concept of NEPPS is streamlining. Why should a PPA reiterate all the conditions
of an MOU or delegation agreement when those documents are as binding as the PPG?
Both states' PPAs contain language committing to meeting provisions of MOUs and
delegation agreements. So, in our oversight, we consider all these documents holistically.
Regarding TNRCC's desire to "have one primary contact for the grant" (page 19);
unfortunately, the organizational structures of both of our organizations do not lend
themselves for employing a sole source contact. The use of a sole source contact would
funnel communication to and from our organizations that would further delay timely
responses from program to program.
Regarding TNRCC's desire for consolidated reporting and coordinated comments to its
report. Experience and communication with TNRCC staff have indicated that attempts
made in FY 1997 and 1998 to consolidate reporting and comments back to TNRCC only
resulted in the same "tearing apart" of these documents for distribution to each media.
31
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
Attachment
Page 3 of 3
We hope that TNRCC's ongoing reorganization will reduce our need to conduct the Air
Program's yearly negotiations and perform mid- and end-of-year reviews with four
separate divisions, those being Division of Border Affairs, Division of Air Quality,
Planning and Assessment, Division of Air/New Source Review, and the Division of
Air/Operating Permits.
WATER QUALITY PROTECTION DIVISION (6WO)
The Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ) concurs in general with the
findings/conclusions and recommendations presented in the report However, we still wish that
the report would mention that the problems experienced in Region 6 are not unique and seem to
coincide quite well with what is being experienced in other Regions.
Assistance Programs Branch (6WO-A)
The presentation of conclusions regarding Accountability Provisions (Chapter 3) contains
some broad statements that are not necessarily true in all programs in both States. This
chapter focuses on our track record regarding core measures, but does not adequately
recognize the effort we make to assure that all statutory requirements are addressed and
committed to.
Also, we disagree with the sentence that states, "Negotiations of work plans were not
initiated timely, and time frames for the process were not established." We typically do a
good job of issuing HQ and Regional guidance as early as possible in the spring (thus
starting the negotiation process). We have an established date for submittal of
applications and a goal of awarding funds within 90 days of their receipt in the Region.
However, this may not have been reflected in Oklahoma's case for fiscal years (FY) 1998
and 1999 since Oklahoma requested that the grant cycle coincide with their State FY. In
order to be responsive to the State's needs, this moved their schedule up by three months
and may have caused much confusion at the State and EPA. We acknowledge that we
often are still negotiating well into the first quarter ... but, it is not because we have no
established time frames .... it is because we often miss those deadline for a wide variety of
causes.
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (6EN)
The Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division (6EN) had no comments to offer on
subject draft audit report.
32
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
APPENDIX II
ABBREVIATIONS
ECOS
Environmental Council of States
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FSR
Financial Status Report
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NEPPS
National Environmental Performance Partnership System
ODEQ
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OIG
Office of Inspector General
PPA
Performance Partnership Agreement
PPG
Performance Partnership Grant
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TNRCC
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Umbrella

Agreement
Oklahoma Environmental Performance Partnership
Agreement
33
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------
Regioi^^O^rsigh^^erformanc^artnershi^Grants
APPENDIX III
DISTRIBUTION
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits (2421)
Headquarters Audit Liaison (2421)
Divisional Inspectors General for Audit
EPA Headquarters Office
Assistant Administrator for Water (4101)
Agency Followup Official (2710)
Agency Followup Coordinator (3304)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (1301)
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Public Affairs (1701)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and State/Local Relations (1501)
Headquarters Library (3401)
EPA Region 6
Director, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ)
Director, Office of External Affairs (6XA)
Audit Followup Coordinator (6MD-R)
Regional Library
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. Steve Thompson, Deputy Executive Director
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Mr. Jeff Saitas, Executive Director
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
34
Report No. 1999-000208-R6-100282

-------