^tosrx
* g% *
i®o!
V PRO^&
-------
Report Contributors: Monica Brym
Jenny Drzewiecki
Patrick Gilbride
Todd Goldman
James Kohler
Abbreviations
C.F.R.
Code of Federal Regulations
EMS
Environmental Management System
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EVS
Employee Viewpoint Survey
FY
Fiscal Year
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
IEC
International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
NEIC
National Enforcement Investigations Center
OCEFT
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
OIG
Office of Inspector General
PIQA
Professional Integrity and Quality Assurance
QA
Quality Assurance
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
QMS
Quality Management System
SHMS
Safety and Health Management System
Cover Photo: Left. National Enforcement Investigations Center building in Lakewood,
Colorado. Right. Inside National Enforcement Investigations Center
laboratory. (EPA photos)
Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 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 (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
° *. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 21-P-0131
i mam \ Office of Inspector General May 12,2021
At a Glance
Why We Did This Audit
As a result of an OIG Hotline
complaint, we conducted an
audit of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, specifically, the
Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics, and Training and its
National Enforcement
Investigations Center. We
conducted this audit to
determine whether OCEFT and
NEIC are addressing findings
and implementing corrective
actions from prior internal and
external audits, inspections,
and documented concerns
related to NEIC.
OCEFT is a federal law
enforcement entity that pursues
criminal violators of air, water,
and hazardous waste pollution
laws. NEIC provides forensic,
scientific, and technical support
for EPA criminal and civil
environmental investigations.
This audit addresses the
following:
• Operating efficiently and
effectively.
This audit addresses a top EPA
management challenge:
• Improving workforce/workload
analyses.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
Staffing Constraints, Safety and Health Concerns at
EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
May Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission
Safety, health, and attrition
issues may compromise
NEIC's ability to support the
EPA's civil and criminal
enforcement efforts.
What We Found
NEIC has addressed internal and external
findings and implemented corrective actions
related to safety and health, yet concerns
persist. These concerns include unconducted
internal safety and health audits and
management reviews, hazardous waste
mismanagement, noncompliance with safety procedures, and staff concerns
about safety and health at NEIC.
NEIC is addressing findings and implementing corrective actions related to its
Quality Management System, which is designed to generate scientifically sound
and legally defensible information to support environmental enforcement. We
found that NEIC should improve tracking issues, such as observations,
comments, concerns, and opportunities for improvement identified from audits;
management review action items; and customer complaints.
NEIC had unresolved action items from OCEFT's Professional Integrity and
Quality Assurance unit's 2017 inspection report related to staffing shortages, trust
in management, and hazardous waste management. OCEFT did not conduct a
follow-up review to examine the effectiveness of the implemented corrective
actions. In 2020, as a result of an inspection by the State of Colorado, NEIC was
cited for several hazardous waste violations. Further, NEIC's 2019 Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey results are 22 percent lower than the EPA's
averages for questions related to management and work environment.
NEIC has been challenged by high attrition rates among staff and the inability to
backfill vacant positions since 2016. If staffing levels continue to fall, NEIC risks a
reduction in analytical capabilities and the ability to accomplish its mission.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We made ten recommendations to the assistant administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, including developing a process for OCEFT to follow
up on inspection findings and confirm whether corrective actions effectively
address findings, as well as developing metrics on safety, health, and work
environment to incorporate into NEIC management performance evaluations. The
Agency agreed with seven recommendations and disagreed with three
recommendations. We consider three recommendations resolved, two completed,
and five unresolved. The Agency's response to our draft report illustrates that it
does not fully understand or appreciate federal Office of Inspector General audit
processes and standards. We stand by our conclusions and recommendations.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
May 12, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Staffing Constraints, Safety and Health Concerns at EPA's National Enforcement
Investigations Center May Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission
Report No. 21-P-0131
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this audit was QA&E-FY20-0099. This
report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG
recommends. Final determination on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance
with established audit resolutions procedures.
The EPA's response to the OIG's draft report illustrates that the EPA does not fully understand or
appreciate federal OIG audit processes and standards, including the requirement to report information
relevant to the audit objective. The EPA asserts that the OIG is not independent and unbiased because we
did not incorporate all the information the Agency thought should be included in the report. The OIG has
in fact incorporated relevant material provided by the Agency to contextualize our findings and provide
the EPA's perspective. Ultimately, we believe this report accurately reflects the conditions we found
during the audit. We remain steadfast in the quality of our reporting practices and are committed to
communicating our findings and conclusions to the Agency, Congress, and the public.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is responsible for the issues discussed in this
report.
Action Required
This report contains unresolved recommendations. The resolution process, as described in the EPA's
Audit Management Procedures, begins immediately with the issuance of this report. Furthermore, we
request a written response to the final report within 60 days of this memorandum. Your response will be
posted on the OIG's website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response
should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not
want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for
redaction or removal along with corresponding justification.
FROM:
TO:
Lawrence Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Staffing Constraints, Safety and Health Concerns at
EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
May Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission
21-P-0131
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Office 7
Scope and Methodology 7
2 NEIC Has Addressed Nonconformities from QA Audits; Tracking of
Some Issues Should be Improved 10
Nonconformities from QA Audits Addressed; Secondary Issues
N ot Form al ly Tracked 10
Other Sources of Issues Not Formally Tracked 11
Conclusions 12
Recommendation 12
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 13
3 OCEFT Did Not Follow Up on Inspection, and Some Issues
Remain Unresolved 14
Concerns Remain from 2016 NEIC Self-Inspection 14
Summary of PIQA Inspection and Investigations of NEIC 14
Observations from 2017 PIQA Inspection Report Persist 15
PIQA Not Required to Follow Up on Inspection Findings 19
Conclusions 20
Recommendation 20
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 20
4 Safety and Health Issues Persist, Though Steps Have Been
Taken to Address Them 22
NEIC Progress on Addressing Safety and Health Concerns 22
Required Internal Audits and Management Reviews Were Not
Conducted 23
Hazardous Waste Management Problems 25
Noncompliance with Safety Incident Reporting Operating Procedure 26
Staff Concerns About Safety and Health at NEIC 28
Conclusions 33
Recommendations 33
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 34
-continued--
-------
Staffing Constraints, Safety and Health Concerns at
EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
May Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission
21-P-0131
5 NEIC Faces Severe Staffing Shortage Due to Work Environment,
Attrition, Difficulty Hiring 36
NEIC Has Experienced Significant Staff Reductions 36
Retirement Eligibility 37
Work Environment is Contributing to High Attrition at NEIC 40
NEIC Efforts to Retain Staff 43
Conclusions 44
Recommendations 44
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 45
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 47
Appendices
A Internal Control Assessment 49
B NEIC's 2019 Federal EVS Results 50
C Agency Response to Draft Report 51
D Distribution 70
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office
of Inspector General
conducted this audit to
determine whether the
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's
Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training and OCEFT's National Enforcement
Investigations Center are addressing findings and implementing corrective actions
from internal and external audits, inspections, and documented concerns related to
NEIC. This audit was initiated based on a complaint submitted to the OIG
Hotline.
Background
OCEFT Organization
OCEFT is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field investigative offices in
the EPA's ten regional offices and in more than 30 other locations across the
country. OCEFT investigates violations of environmental laws, with most cases
stemming from three statutes: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (hazardous waste). OCEFT's criminal
enforcement relies on scientists, regulators, permit writers, and other experts
working in federal, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies, as well as other
EPA programs.
As of fiscal year 2020, OCEFT had approximately 270 employees. As shown in
Figure 1, it is organized into three divisions:
• The Criminal Investigation Division is composed of special agents who
are law enforcement officers. These agents focus investigative resources
on cases that involve negligent, knowing, or willful violations of federal
environmental law that often result in harm to human health or the
environment.
• The Legal Counsel Division provides legal support and guidance on all
legal and policy matters affecting the criminal enforcement of
Top Management Challenge
This audit addresses the following top management
challenge for the Agency, as identified in OIG Report
No. 20-N-0231, EPA's FYs 2020-2021 Top Management
Challenges, issued July 21, 2020:
• Improving workforce/workload analyses.
21-P-0131
1
-------
environmental laws or the operations of NEIC. The attorneys in this
division provide legal services to OCEFT management and staff, as well
as to EPA regional counsels, in areas such as environmental and criminal
law, forensic science, and expert witness preparation.
• NEIC, located in Lakewood, Colorado, provides forensics, science, and
technical support for both criminal and civil environmental investigations.
Figure 1: OCEFT organization
OCEFT Immediate
Office
Source: OIG summary of EPA information. (EPA OIG image)
PIQA Functions
OCEFT's immediate office includes PIQA, which consisted of five employees as
of December 2020. PIQA is charged with ensuring that OCEFT employees,
particularly law enforcement personnel and managers, adhere to the highest levels
of integrity and professionalism as expected by the Agency and the general
public. PIQA's oversight areas are described in Table 1. Two areas relevant to
this audit are PIQA's inspection program and internal investigations.
Table 1: PIQA oversight areas
Area Responsibility
Inspection Program
Responsible for assessing the effectiveness of internal controls
in OCEFT's operations. PIQA coordinates and conducts
evaluations of internal controls through a comprehensive
program of self-inspections and on-site verification inspections.
Internal
Investigations
Responsible for investigating complaints against OCEFT
investigators, managers, and other employees.
21-P-0131
2
-------
Area
Responsibility
Quality Assurance
Management
Responsible for ensuring that OCEFT divisions that engage in
activities involving the collection, analysis, and use of
environmental data adhere to applicable Agency policies and
standards concerning quality management and assurance. The
PIQA QA manager is the senior quality management official
within OCEFT.
National Security
Clearances
Responsible for coordinating all aspects of the security-
clearance process with the EPA's Security Management
Division and the Personnel Security Branch.
Drug Deterrence
Program
Responsible for coordinating drug-testing activities with the
EPA's Office of Human Resources.
Source: OIG analysis based on EPA information. (EPA OIG table)
The PIQA inspection program covers all OCEFT divisions and programs,
including NEIC. PIQA's reports from internal investigations do not render
judgment on the allegations or evidence of misconduct; rather, the reports set
forth the relevant facts uncovered during the investigative process to provide to
OCEFT management. OCEFT management determines whether further action
needs to be taken based on the results of the investigation. PIQA cannot initiate an
investigation without the written consent of the OCEFT director or designee.
NEIC Organization
NEIC is the environmental forensics center for the EPA's enforcement programs,
which includes both laboratory and field operations. NEIC supports the EPA's
civil and criminal enforcement through process-based investigations, development
of new analytical and field methods,
evaluations and modifications of existing
methods, and expert technical
consultation and advice. NEIC is
accredited in accordance with the
recognized International Organization for
Standardizati on/Internati onal
Electrotechnical Commission, known as
ISO/IEC, 17025 certification; as such, its
operations conform to those certification
and supplemental forensic testing
requirements. This accreditation
demonstrates technical competence for a
defined scope and the operation of a
Quality Management System, known as
QMS. The accreditation scope includes
both field activities and chemistry.
"NEIC's mission is to protect human health
and the environment by serving as EPA's
fully accredited ISO 17025 forensics
laboratory and providing multi-disciplinary
expert teams to conduct field
investigations to gather and evaluate
evidence and perform analytical services.
NEIC supports criminal and civil
enforcement partners by gathering data,
providing engineering evaluations,
analyzing forensic evidence, providing
legally defensible data, serving as expert
witnesses in the courtroom, and delivering
investigative training."
—NEIC website
21-P-0131
3
-------
As of August 2020, NEIC had approximately 60 employees. As shown in
Figure 2, NEIC consists of three branches:
• The Field Branch supports the EPA's civil and criminal enforcement by
conducting inspections, providing field sampling, and engineering
evaluations.
• The Laboratory Branch provides analytical support to civil and criminal
investigations in addition to conducting applied research and development
to maintain sufficient scientific tools and applications for enforcement
programs.
• The Infrastructure and Project Support Branch provides electronic data
analysis in support of NEIC's investigations. It also operates the QA
program that helps to ensure NEIC operations conform to ISO standards.
Figure 2: NEIC organization
Source: OIG summary of EPA information. (EPA OIG image)
Description of Audits, Inspections, and Documented Concerns
Related to NEIC
Our audit objective was to determine whether OCEFT and NEIC are addressing
findings and implementing corrective actions from prior internal and external
audits, inspections, and documented concerns related to NEIC. This includes all
internal and external audits or inspections, including those related to QA, safety,
and health.
Documented concerns include any nonconformities with accreditation
requirements, staff and customer complaints, observations, or other concerns that
were documented and provided to management or relevant staff, such as the QA
or safety and health coordinators. NEIC's Quality Management Plan requires that
NEIC management encourage staff to report any issues that may impact the
quality or efficiency of NEIC's operations.
21-P-0131
4
-------
Quality Improvement at NEIC
NEIC management actively supports improvement by encouraging the staff to:
• Continually evaluate the adequacy, performance, and effectiveness of current NEIC
policies, procedures, and practices through internal auditing of the QMS.
• Apply innovative approaches, while maintaining integrity and accuracy.
• Respond to corrective action requests and search for root causes.
• Take appropriate actions by planning, documenting, and implementing a response
to assessment findings in a timely manner.
• Encouraging employees to continually strive for improvements in quality and
efficiency by identifying processes as candidates for improvements.
—NEIC Quality Management Plan
NEIC is subject to various types of internal and external audits, which may use
different terminology or have different requirements for addressing findings or
nonconformities. Table 2 provides examples of the types of audits, inspections, or
documented concerns that may make findings and recommend corrective actions
related to NEIC.
Table 2: Sources of internal and external audits, inspections, and documented
concerns
Area Activity
Quality Management
System
External accreditation body periodically audits NEIC to assess
conformance with accreditation requirements. At least
annually, NEIC conducts internal audits to assess
conformance with accreditation requirements (ISO/IEC 17025
and accreditation body supplemental requirements), previous
audit findings from internal and external audits, previous
remedial and corrective actions, and requests from NEIC
personnel.
Safety and Health
Management System
Periodic external audits conducted by the EPA's Safety,
Health, and Environmental Management Program or internal
audits conducted by NEIC staff. Safety and health audits
assess NEIC's compliance with environmental, fire protection,
and safety and health requirements and Agency policies,
including the effectiveness of NEIC's Safety and Health
Management System, or SHMS, and status of NEIC's
conformance with applicable laws, regulations, and Agency
policies.
More frequent inspections of NEIC's office, lab, and field
components may also be conducted.
Environmental
Management System
Annual internal audits conducted by NEIC, which include all
EMS requirements, assess the status of previous findings from
internal and external audits, as well as previous remedial and
corrective actions.
21-P-0131
5
-------
Area
Activity
Management System
Reviews
At least annually, senior NEIC management reviews each of
the three management system components—QMS, SHMS,
and EMS—to determine whether the components are
successfully implemented and to identify opportunities for
improvement. The review includes an evaluation of policies
and procedures, such as obsolescence, changes in practice,
and technological improvements; reports from managers and
supervisors, such as concerns, negative trends,
improvements, and suggestions; status and outcome of
internal and external audits and assessments, such as follow-
up from previous audits; and internal and external customer
feedback and complaints. Documented concerns may be
raised during these reviews or at any time during the year to
management, the QMS coordinator, the SHMS coordinator, or
other staff involved in QA.
PIQA Oversight
On an ad hoc basis, PIQA may conduct inspections or
investigations of NEIC operations or employees (Table 1). The
scope of PIQA inspections may cover other audit areas like
QA and safety and health.
Source: OIG analysis based on EPA information. (EPA OIG table)
Requirements for Resolving Findings of Audits and Other Reviews
The U.S. Government Accountability Office defines "internal control" as:
[A] process effected by an entity's oversight body, management,
and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the
objectives of an entity will be achieved. ... Internal control
comprises the plans, methods, policies, and procedures used to
fulfill the mission, strategic plan, goals, and objectives of the
entity.1
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility
for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control', issued July 2016, defines
obligations for risk management and internal control in federal agencies. EPA
Order 1000.24 (CHG 2), Management's Responsibility for Internal Control
requires all EPA organizations to establish and maintain internal controls to
achieve effective and efficient program operations, including evaluating internal
controls on an ongoing basis and taking prompt actions to correct any
vulnerabilities identified.
The GAO's governmentwide internal control standards contain components
relevant to resolving the findings from audits and other reviews (Table 3).
1 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-7Q4G. September 2014.
21-P-0131
6
-------
Table 3: Key aspects of GAO internal control components relevant to this audit
Control Environment
Management sets the tone at the top and throughout the organization by example, which is
fundamental to an effective internal control system.
Management should demonstrate a commitment to recruit, develop, and retain competent
individuals.
Control Activities
Control activities are the actions management establishes through policies and procedures
to achieve objectives and respond to risks in the internal control system.
Monitoring
Internal control monitoring assesses the quality of performance overtime and promptly
resolves the findings of audits and other reviews. Corrective actions are a necessary
complement to control activities in order to achieve objectives.
Management completes and documents corrective actions to remediate internal control
deficiencies on a timely basis. These corrective actions include resolution of audit findings.
The audit resolution process begins when audit or other review results are reported to
management, and the process is completed only after action has been taken that
(1) corrects identified deficiencies, (2) produces improvements, or (3) demonstrates that the
findings and recommendations do not warrant management action.
Management, with oversight from the oversight body, monitors the status of remediation
efforts so that they are completed on a timely basis.
Source: OIG analysis of GAO internal control standards. (EPA OIG table)
Additionally, perNEIC's operating procedures and Quality Management Plan,
the NEIC quality manager, EMS coordinator, or SHMS coordinator shall conduct
ongoing reviews of the status and estimated completion dates of incomplete
corrective and preventive actions and shall notify NEIC management of actions
that have not been completed. Ultimately, management is responsible for ensuring
that problems that need attention are identified through the various assessments
and facilitating a process to determine satisfactory solutions and the effectiveness
of corrective actions.
Responsible Office
OCEFT, within OECA, is responsible for overseeing NEIC operations.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our performance audit from February 2020 to February 2021. We
conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. As detailed in Appendix A, we
assessed the internal controls necessary to satisfy our audit objectives. In
particular, we assessed the internal control components and underlying
21-P-0131
7
-------
principles—as outlined in the GAO's governmentwide internal control
standards—significant to our audit objectives. Any internal control deficiencies
we found are discussed in this report.
To answer our objectives, we examined relevant OCEFT and NEIC policies and
procedures, including OCEFT's and NEIC's Quality Management Plans, as well
as NEIC's Corrective Action, Preventive Action, and Handling Complaints
operating procedure; Quality Policy; Internal Audits of the NEIC Management
System operating procedure; Management Review operating procedure; SHMS
policy; and Safety Incident Reporting operating procedure.
We examined the findings and corrective actions from the following audits,
inspections, and documented concerns related to NEIC that were conducted or
identified from October 2013 through March 2020:
• PIQA investigations and inspections, as well as manuals and plans
associated with these reports.
• Internal and external QA audits, such as those related to NEIC's ISO
accreditation.
• Internal and external safety and health audits, as well as safety incident
reports.
• EPA injury, illness, and near-miss reports.
• Action items and documented concerns identified during management
reviews.
• Customer complaints.
We reviewed the 2019 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results for NEIC,
which we discuss further in Chapter 5 and Appendix B.
While we requested audits on NEIC's EMS, we did not focus on these audits
because they are not central to NEIC operations and several EMS components are
not controlled by NEIC. For example, recycling, utility usage, and landscaping
issues are handled by EPA facilities or U.S. General Services Administration
personnel.
We interviewed 61 percent of all current NEIC employees. We interviewed a total
of 54 people, which included current and former OCEFT and NEIC management
and staff from each NEIC branch, staff from other OCEFT divisions, and other
EPA laboratory directors and managers (Table 4). We did not interview all former
NEIC employees.
21-P-0131
8
-------
Table 4: Summary of OIG interviewees
Current
NEIC staff
Current NEIC
management
Former NEIC
staff and
management
External to NEIC
(including three
OCEFT managers)
Total OIG
interviewees
26
9
9
10
54
Source: OIG summary. (EPA OIG table)
Note: In some cases, we conducted multiple interviews with an interviewee; thus, the total
number of interviews is greater than 54. Interviews were conducted March-October 2020.
This report presents concerns that are supported by documentary, testimonial, or
other evidence demonstrating that there is a reasonable basis for the concern.
Testimonial evidence is a key data point in determining compliance with criteria,
such as from NEIC's Safety Incident Reporting operating procedure that states
staff should report safety and health concerns without fear of reprisal. Staff
interviews and testimonial evidence are also a key data point in assessing work
environment in conjunction with other evidence, such as attrition.
21-P-0131
9
-------
Chapter 2
NEIC Has Addressed Nonconformities from QA
Audits; Tracking of Some Issues Should be Improved
NEIC has addressed all nonconformities with accreditation requirements
identified from QA audits, action items from management reviews, and customer
complaints from FYs 2014 through 2019. NEIC, however, lacks systematic
tracking of secondary issues from observations, comments, concerns, and
opportunities for improvement identified from QA audits; management review
action items that are not tracked anywhere else; and customer complaints. The
absence of a systematic method of documenting and tracking review of these
items leads to an increased probability of persistent issues not being adequately
addressed, less informed decisions on whether actions are needed, and a negative
impact on knowledge transfer among NEIC staff and management.
Nonconformities from QA Audits Addressed; Secondary Issues Not
Formally Tracked
NEIC's ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation
requires internal QA audits, as well as
external QA audits from an accreditation
body. We reviewed 25 internal and external
QA audits conducted from FYs 2014 through
2019. These audits identified
38 nonconformities, which is the absence of
or the failure to implement and maintain an
accreditation requirement. Examples of
nonconformities include no records of
equipment calibration verification, lack of
information in data packages to enable tests
to be repeated under original test conditions,
and missing information from the project
file. We found all 38 nonconformities were
addressed and documented as required by
NEIC's QMS. Nonconformities require
corrections or corrective or preventative
actions (see blue box). NEIC has a formal
process that includes tracking these actions to address nonconformities. Findings
that are not considered nonconformities are not required to have associated
corrective or preventative actions or formal tracking.
QA audits also identified a secondary group of issues referred to as "concerns,
observations, comments and opportunities for improvement." These are audit
Key Definitions
Correction. Action to eliminate a detected
nonconformity. A correction can be made in
advance of, in conjunction with, or after a
corrective action.
Corrective action. Action to eliminate the
cause of a nonconformity and to prevent
recurrence. There can be more than one
cause for a nonconformity.
Preventive action. Action to eliminate the
cause of a potential nonconformity or other
potential undesirable situation. There can be
more than one cause for a potential
nonconformity. Preventive action is taken to
prevent occurrence whereas corrective
action is taken to prevent recurrence.
—NEIC Operating Procedure
21-P-0131
10
-------
results that do not meet the definition of a "nonconformity"—and, thus, do not
require corrective action—but warrant consideration for improvement or
preventive action. There were 99 items in this group. Common themes included
outdated procedures, incomplete work, equipment issues, personnel training, and
facilities issues.
While some of these secondary issues are addressed via the corrective or
preventative action process, there is no systematic method or formal process to
track them. It is left to the quality manager or designee's discretion whether
corrective, preventive, or other action needs to be taken. There is also no
requirement to document decisions on whether to take corrective or other actions.
Other Sources of Issues Not Formally Tracked
Nonconformities are identified from QA audits, as described above, but also from
other assessments of the NEIC management system, such as management reviews
or internal or external complaints. Nonconformities identified from these sources
also require corrective or preventive actions for which NEIC has a formal process,
including a formal tracking mechanism. Not all issues identified from these other
sources are nonconformities, however. NEIC management, the quality manager,
or the SHMS and EMS coordinators have discretion over whether an issue needs
to be elevated and go through the required process for corrective or preventative
action.
Management Reviews
As described in Table 2, NEIC senior management reviews the three management
system components—QMS, SHMS, and EMS—at least annually to determine
whether the components are successfully implemented and to identify
opportunities for improvement.
The management review process results in a set of management review action
items. From FYs 2014 through 2019, NEIC identified 69 management review
action items. Examples of these action items include clarifying and documenting
when real-time assessments are used at NEIC, working on collecting customer
feedback in different ways, and providing specialized data training for field
equipment. We found that NEIC addressed all 69 management review action
items, but there was no formal tracking mechanism used unless an item was
elevated to a corrective or preventive action. To determine whether the action
item was addressed, the OIG had to piece together documentation from meeting
agendas, notes, and emails. While NEIC s Management Review operating
procedure calls for the records of management reviews to be retained, it does not
require formal tracking. The process is informal, using only meeting notes and
agendas. There is also no requirement to document decisions on whether to take
corrective or other actions.
21-P-0131
11
-------
Customer Complaints
NEIC's customers include the Criminal Investigation Division, as well as
enforcement programs in EPA regional offices. NEIC staff can receive customer
complaints at any time. NEIC has procedures on how to handle these complaints,
though there is no formal tracking mechanism used unless a complaint is elevated
to a corrective or preventive action. There is also no requirement to document
decisions on whether to take corrective or other actions based on a customer
complaint. We identified eight complaints received by NEIC from FYs 2014
through 2019, and we found that NEIC had adequately addressed all the
complaints. While NEIC has procedures on how to handle these complaints,
including responsibilities for evaluation and tracking, there is no formal, central
tracking mechanism used unless an item is elevated to a corrective or preventive
action.
Examples of customer complaints include incorrect information in reports, poor
communication, lack of preparation, unfamiliarity with monitoring equipment and
installation requirements, and feedback on improving NEIC records collection
and handling process. Two of these complaints did not go through the full
complaint handling process. One was a complaint identified through a third party,
and the other was an unofficial customer complaint for which no further action
was needed. While NEIC's handling of these two complaints does not raise
concerns, the fact that complaints in general are not always subject to formal,
central tracking prevents NEIC from identifying and responding to repeat
concerns.
Conclusions
NEIC is addressing high-priority issues, such as nonconformities identified in QA
audits. We found that NEIC should improve the tracking and documentation for
secondary issues, such as concerns, observations, comments, and opportunities for
improvement from QA audits as well as items from other sources, like customer
complaints. Better tracking will improve NEIC's ability to respond to persistent
issues, identify trends, make more informed decisions on whether there should be
actions to address, and facilitate knowledge transfer among NEIC staff and
management.
Recommendation
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
1. Direct the National Enforcement Investigations Center to develop and
implement a formal procedure and tracking mechanism (such as a
consolidated spreadsheet) for National Enforcement Investigations Center
decisions related to observations, comments, concerns, and opportunities
21-P-0131
12
-------
for improvement identified from audits; management review action items
that are not tracked anywhere else; and customer complaints.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency disagreed with Recommendation 1, claiming that NEIC is already
properly tracking the identified issues and is not required by NEIC's ISO 17025
accreditation to develop a mechanism to track issues identified by the OIG. While
not necessarily required for accreditation, we believe that better tracking of
secondary issues—such as from concerns, observations, comments, and
opportunities for improvement from QA audits, as well as items from other
sources, like customer complaints—will improve NEIC's ability to respond to
repeat issues, identify trends, make more informed decisions on whether there
should be actions to address, and facilitate knowledge transfer among NEIC staff
and management.
Further, the Agency response noted that:
[F]or the first time in 10 years, the OCEFT Criminal Investigation
Division has reported that it is satisfied with the support they
receive from NEIC (a key customer not interviewed by OIG).
We did, in fact, interview special agents from the Criminal Investigation Division
who coordinate with NEIC and, in Chapter 5, we report that NEIC staff recognize
project completion time has improved, which was a primary customer complaint
in the past. We believe improved tracking of issues raised by customer complaints
and other sources could bolster management's case for future changes to the
NEIC program that would benefit its customers. This recommendation is
unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
We included the Agency's full response to our draft report in Appendix C.
21-P-0131
13
-------
Chapter 3
OCEFT Did Not Follow Up on Inspection, and Some
Issues Remain Unresolved
From October 2014 through March 2020, PIQA conducted one inspection, one
investigation in 2017, and another investigation in 2020 of NEIC. Only the
inspection resulted in corrective actions being developed. However, we found that
the three corrective actions NEIC developed in response to the inspection did not
address the findings, which were related to trust in management, staffing, and
waste disposal issues. Also, while OCEFT requires corrective actions to address
findings from PIQA inspections, it does not require follow-up. The effect of not
following up on NEIC's corrective actions has resulted in these issues continuing
to persist, including as reflected in a 2020 hazardous waste inspection by the State
of Colorado that identified hazardous waste violations.
Concerns Remain from 2016 NEIC Self-Inspection
In 2016, at the request of PIQA, NEIC conducted a self-inspection in advance of a
PIQA inspection and identified 14 action items. We identified three concerns
warranting follow-up from NEIC's 2016 self-inspection: (1) lack of adequate
staffing to meet Agency goals, (2) a hiring system that has been "incredibly slow
and is not helpful in recruiting the technical expertise needed at NEIC," and (3)
imports of technical data from the field due to difficulties with the Agency's
firewall.
According to NEIC, the first two issues are not unique to NEIC. NEIC also noted
that there is no formulaic corrective or remedial action, like those used to address
concerns identified as part of QMS, SHMS, and EMS audits. NEIC provided us
evidence of the business case it made to OECA leadership for additional hires.
NEIC also noted that the work practices and timeliness of the EPA's human
resources are not within NEIC's control and, while the speed at which hiring
occurs has improved, hiring is generally still slow. Despite NEIC's efforts, we
found that these concerns still remain. We found that the concern regarding
technical difficulties with the Agency's firewall is largely resolved.
Summary of PIQA Inspection and Investigations of NEIC
From October 1, 2014, through March 3, 2020, PIQA conducted one inspection in
2016 (resulting in a 2017 report) and two investigations—one in 2017 and one in
2020—of NEIC.
21-P-0131
14
-------
The inspection and investigations were requested by OCEFT management and are
described below:
• The 2016 PIQA inspection's goal was to assess the effectiveness of
NEIC's internal controls based on the GAO's internal control standards.
The inspection report found that NEIC was in "full compliance" in three
of the GAO's core functional areas: Training Management, Administrative
Management, and Occupational Health and Safety Management. It found
that NEIC was in "substantial compliance" in one of the core functional
areas—Executive Management. The NEIC developed corrective actions
for the report's eight recommendations, which are discussed below.
• The 2017 investigation examined allegations of workplace harassment and
scientific integrity concerns. The investigation report had no major findings,
but it did find that internal policies and procedures for documenting results
of analytical work were not followed. The 2017 investigation report made
no recommendations.
• The 2020 investigation examined the circumstances that led to NEIC
deficiencies in hazardous waste management, which were found during an
inspection by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
on January 7, 2020. PIQA concluded that recent attrition at NEIC, the
co-location project with the EPA Region 8 Laboratory in 2018 and 2019,
and difficulty securing a contract to dispose of hazardous wastes partially
contributed to NEIC's hazardous waste violations. The 2020 investigation
report made no recommendations. According to the PIQA special agent in
charge, there is no expectation that NEIC will develop corrective actions
based on PIQA investigation reports. Additionally, unlike inspections
where there are action items or corrective actions that need to be
completed, PIQA investigations are fact-finding in nature, and the results
are reported to OCEFT and NEIC management for action, if necessary. No
action was taken by OCEFT and NEIC management beyond what was
described in the investigation report, which documented that, according to
NEIC, the hazardous waste deficiencies and the causes for the deficiencies
had been addressed.
Observations from 2017 PIQA Inspection Report Persist
In response to the 2017 PIQA inspection report, NEIC developed an Actionable
Items Report responding to all eight PIQA recommendations. The report included
corrective actions, implementation dates, and a responsible party. All actions were
expected to be completed by September 30, 2018. While NEIC implemented
corrective actions to address PIQA's observations, we found that three of PIQA's
observations persist, which indicates that the corrective actions did not effectively
address these three observations (Table 5).
21-P-0131
15
-------
Table 5: Effectiveness of NEIC corrective actions
OIG assessment of whether
PIQA inspection observations Corrective actions implemented as corrective action effectively
and actionable items reported by NEIC addressed PIQA observation
1.
Observation: There is a general
lack of confidence and trust in the
management team.
Actionable Item: Suggest
continued management training
and transparency in the
management selection process.
• Established an in-house leadership
development program.
• Educated new supervisors via
weekly meetings.
• Open multiple detail opportunities
across NEIC to enable staff to have
an opportunity to serve in a
temporary management position.
• Encouraged NEIC managers to
engage in OECA's mentoring
program.
• Hold regular branch and all-hands
meetings to ensure transparent
communication.
X
Trust in management and
transparency in the management
selection process continue to be
issues, identified via OIG interviews.
These issues are recognized by
NEIC senior management.
NEIC notes that the current
management team is different from
the management team at the time of
the PIQA inspection and that it
remains the responsibility and
practice of the NEIC director and
deputy director to constantly evaluate
the capabilities of management at all
levels in NEIC to provide leadership,
management, and oversight of the
organization.
2.
Observation: Employees do not
feel properly trained when they first
come onto NEIC.
Actionable Item: Develop a more
robust on-the-job training program.
• Action item in NEIC Business Plan
to develop staff development plans
that balance needs of NEIC with
ongoing development of each staff
member.
• Action item in NEIC Business Plan
to develop onboarding process for
new employees.
3.
Observation: Branches appear to
have a significant amount of
administrative duties without
adequate support.
Actionable Item: Recommend
review of administrative burdens
and consider additional
administrative staff to support the
branches.
NEIC does not have the staff or the
funding to support additional
administrative support. Instead, NEIC
has developed an administrative team
that operates out of the Infrastructure
and Support Branch. The team
provides administrative support to all
three branches and backs up critical
functions.
X
Lack of administrative support
continues to be an issue highlighted
by NEIC staff and recognized by
NEIC management.
NEIC noted that administrative
support has been reduced across the
Agency and these functions have
been devolved to staff as part of their
workload. NEIC has prioritized hiring
for technical roles, supporting the
core mission of NEIC. NEIC also said
that this is not an action item that it
has much, if any, influence over.
21-P-0131
16
-------
OIG assessment of whether
PIQA inspection observations Corrective actions implemented as corrective action effectively
and actionable items reported by NEIC addressed PIQA observation
4.
Observation: The waste disposal
officer left and another person was
not identified to take over.
Actionable Item: Duties of the
waste disposal officer need to be
addressed.
• Duties have been transferred to
three staff.
• NEIC's health and safety officer has
taken a more active role in waste
management.
• Procedures have been updated
based on the transfer of duties.
X
Distribution of waste control officer
duties—that is, multiple people
involved with no clear lead—and
workload constraints due to staff
attrition were contributing factors to
the hazardous waste violations
identified during the 2020 inspection.
PIQA's March 2020 NEIC Hazardous
Waste Compliance Investigation
report also found that recent attrition
at NEIC appeared to, in part, have
led to solid waste compliance
irregularities.
NEIC said that as staff has turned
over, it reassigned and documented
the waste control officers duties and
responsibilities.
5.
Observation: Customers
consistently complained about the
length of time it took to get final
analysis reports.
Actionable Item: Turnaround time
on reports needs to be reduced,
especially on the civil side.
• Implemented the joint Lab and Field
Branch Quality Assurance Project
Plan and Reporting for the civil
program.
• Implemented a Lean effort for civil
program project reports.
• Implemented the Lab Action Plan
aimed at shortening the time frames
for the lab portions of reports.
v/
6.
Observation: Communication with
NEIC national technical
coordinators located in Denver,
Colorado, is stifled and
inconsistent.
Actionable Item: Develop a
program by which the Criminal
Investigation Division can access
NEIC national technical
coordinators on an ongoing basis.
The Region 8 national technical
coordinator now sits at the Denver
regional office, rather than Lakewood,
Colorado, one day a week.
The acting chief for the criminal section
has increased communication with
Criminal Investigation Division agents
and has instructed national technical
coordinators located in Lakewood to
participate in regular calls with their
assigned regions.
v/
7.
Observation: Piece of equipment
unaccounted for.
Actionable Item: Recommend Field
Branch contact the manufacturer
for an expected return date.
The EPA's Office of Research and
Development picked up the equipment
from the manufacturer in March 2017
to borrow it for a joint project.
Field Branch is evaluating alternatives
to tracking equipment and will report to
management upon update of tracking
documentation.
v/
21-P-0131
17
-------
PIQA inspection observations
and actionable items
Corrective actions implemented as
reported by NEIC
OIG assessment of whether
corrective action effectively
addressed PIQA observation
8.
Observation: Staff not trained to
enter equipment into inventory
database.
Actionable Item: Recommend Lab
Branch provide the training support
needed.
Management provided training on the
inventory database.
v/
Source: OIG analysis of NEIC corrective actions from 2017 PIQA inspection report. (EPA OIG table)
Note: OIG assessment based on document reviews and interviews.
The three PIQA observations that persist from Table 5 are described in more
detail below.
General Lack of Confidence and Trust in NEIC Management
To address the 2017 PIQA inspection report finding related to a lack of
confidence and trust in the management team, NEIC reported implementing
several corrective actions, as described in Table 5. While many of those in
managment at NEIC have changed since 2016, interviews with staff indicate that
there is still a general lack of confidence and trust in NEIC management,
specifically NEIC senior management. We interviewed 44 current and former
NEIC staff and managers. The majority of staff-level interviewees highlighted
lack of trust in management as an ongoing issue, which, for most of the former
employees, contributed to their departure from NEIC. In response to our question
about this ongoing issue, NEIC senior management and OCEFT leadership said
that not all staff have embraced the management's focus on timeliness, customer
service, and culture change.
Administrative Duties
The 2017 PIQA inspection report noted that "attrition has led to many vacant
positions with no backfill and therefore additional work [for] the remaining
employees, particularly for administrative roles." NEIC's original response to the
2017 PIQA inspection report was that NEIC does not have the staff or funding for
additional administrative support. NEIC also said it developed an administrative
team that operates out of the Infrastructure and Project Support Branch that
provides support to all three NEIC branches and backs up critical functions. We
found that the team lead originally assigned to this task has since retired and,
according to interviews, administrative duties continue to be pushed down to the
staff level. One NEIC manager estimated that, in the past, 75 percent of staff time
was devoted to project productivity but that has decreased due to an increase in
ancillary duties. Staff interviews confirmed that administrative duties are still a
challenge for NEIC. NEIC confirmed that it no longer staffs an administrative
team and "does not deliver administrative support." Thus, the observation that
NEIC branches appeared to have a significant amount of administrative duties
21-P-0131
18
-------
without adequate administrative support is still accurate and germane to our
finding, described in Chapter 5, onNEIC's staff shortage.
Hazardous Waste Management
As described in Table 5, NEIC reported taking actions to respond to PIQA's
observation regarding waste disposal officer duties. One of the duties of the waste
control officer is to arrange timely disposal of hazardous waste so that NEIC does
not accumulate hazardous waste on-site in excess of its waste generator status. In
January 2020, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
conducted a hazardous waste inspection of NEIC and found multiple violations
related to NEIC waste management and disposal. Violations included failure to
make hazardous waste determinations and failure to comply with regulations for a
change in waste generator category. The
results of this inspection are discussed in
Chapter 4.
The violations highlight how the
corrective actions to address PIQA's
2017 inspection report observations were
not effectively addressed. The violations
from the state's hazardous waste
inspection resulted in an $30,400
administrative penalty for the EPA.
Furthermore, the violations at NEIC and
other EPA laboratories prompted an
April 2020 memorandum from the
assistant administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance to all EPA
assistant and regional administrators and
their deputies. The memorandum
reinforced the EPA's environmental
compliance responsibilities in light of
compliance issues at several EPA
laboratory facilities, particularly related
to the management of waste materials regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
PIQA Not Required to Follow Up on Inspection Findings
For inspections, OCEFT's Quality Management Plan states that:
[IJnspected organizational unit must then return an "Actionable
Items" report within 4 weeks of receipt of the OCEFT report,
detailing the corrective actions proposed or implemented to
"In recent months, we have become aware of
compliance issues at several EPA laboratory facilities,
particularly related to the management of waste
materials regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Deficiencies have included
improper management of universal waste, failure to
make hazardous waste determinations, failure to
label waste, and failure to perform weekly
inspections. These are significant issues, especially for
an agency like ours that is charged with ensuring that
all regulated entities comply with environmental
requirements. EPA labs and facilities must comply
with all environmental requirements while attending
to their vital research, analytical, and mission support
functions. They should perform better than, and be a
model for, other facilities. Like other regulated
entities, EPA facilities are subject to enforcement as
well as penalties for noncompliance."
—April 24, 2020 memorandum from the assistant
administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Assuring Environmental Compliance at
EPA Laboratories and Facilities.
21-P-0131
19
-------
address any deficiencies identified during the inspection. When a
corrective action has been reported as completed, the OCEFT
QAM [QA manager] may conduct a limited follow-up
confirmation review to document the effectiveness of the
implemented corrective action.
OCEFT did not conduct a confirmation review to determine the effectiveness of
NEIC's corrective actions from the 2017 PIQA inspection report. Our review
found that three corrective actions were not effective and that PIQA's 2017
observations are still pertinent and unresolved. Additionally, the OCEFT's QA
manager retired in December 2018, and the position remained vacant until
April 2021.
Conclusions
PIQA's 2017 inspection of NEIC made eight observations requiring corrective
actions. Three observations have remained issues, as evidenced by our review of
the corrective actions, as well as the 2020 Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment hazardous waste inspection that found hazardous waste
management violations. OCEFT's Quality Management Plan does not require the
auditing agency to follow up, so PIQA is not obligated to follow up on findings or
observations from PIQA inspections. For NEIC to fully benefit from the resources
invested in PIQA inspections and investigations, corrective actions taken in
response to PIQA's inspections and investigations should be monitored and
reviewed for effectiveness to ensure that observations are addressed and that
corrective actions are effective.
Recommendation
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
2. Direct the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training to
develop and implement a follow-up process for inspection findings,
including determining and documenting whether corrective actions
effectively address findings.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency agreed with Recommendation 2 and stated that PIQA has updated its
Office Inspection Program Manual to follow up on high-priority action items to
ensure items are completed and document follow-up as part of the inspection file.
After reviewing the updated manual, we believe that the Agency's corrective
21-P-0131
20
-------
action adequately responds to our recommendation and consider
Recommendation 2 complete.
In its response to our draft report, the Agency said that our report
"mischaracterizes the role of PIQA within OCEFT" and that "it is not the role of
PIQA to specifically take action on recommendations presented to management."
Our conclusion is based on language from OCEFT" s Quality Management Plan
that states, in reference to PIQA inspections, that OCEFT's QA manager, a
position located in PIQA, "may conduct a limited follow-up confirmation review
to document the effectiveness of the implemented corrective action." It is
reasonable to conclude that independent verification should occur to ensure the
corrective actions stemming from PIQA's inspections address PIQA's original
observations. This is especially true in the case of NEIC, given how infrequently
PIQA conducts inspections of NEIC—only one inspection was conducted from
2014 through 2020. We revised the recommendation to remove specific reference
to PIQA as the organization responsible for following up.
The Agency indicated that some of PIQA's observations from its 2017 report are
no longer relevant due to subsequent management changes and other factors;
therefore, the observations made by PIQA at that time about managers cannot be
imputed to the current management team. Table 5 already included the additional
context previously provided by NEIC and highlights the PIQA observations that
continue to be relevant. The Agency also claimed that our conclusion regarding
the contributing factors that led to the hazardous waste violations at NEIC "is
wrong and disregards information provided to OIG." We stand by this conclusion
and note that it is consistent with the conclusion PIQA made in its March 2020
NEIC Hazardous Waste Compliance Investigation report, which stated:
PIQA established that for many years, solid waste control and
management at NEIC has been the result of various employees
with shared accountability for regulatory compliance with EPA
and Colorado statutes. Whereas several layers of compliance
assurance checks and balances were in place in the past, recent
attrition at NEIC coupled with the merger of the Region 8
Laboratory into Building 25 and difficulty relating to securing a
contract to dispose of hazardous wastes appear to in part, have led
to solid waste compliance irregularities.
We included the Agency's full response to our draft report in Appendix C.
21-P-0131
21
-------
Chapter 4
Safety and Health Issues Persist, Though Steps Have
Been Taken to Address Them
We found that NEIC has addressed many internal and external findings and
implemented corrective actions related to safety and health, yet safety concerns
have persisted. According to NEIC's Quality Management Plan, safety and health
are integral parts of the NEIC management system; NEIC management
philosophy is that a safe workplace is essential for long-term success. Senior
management and supervisors are responsible and accountable for all safety and
health issues at NEIC.
Yet, we identified multiple safety and health issues, including:
• Internal safety and health audits and management reviews not conducted
as required.
• Hazardous waste mismanagement.
• Noncompliance with the Safety Incident Reporting Operating Procedure.
There are no records showing why the required safety and health audits and
management reviews were not conducted. Hazardous waste mismanagement
stemmed from a failure to address waste disposal findings identified over many
years and reviews. Noncompliance with safety incident reporting resulted from,
among other things, supervisors not adhering to the required process for
preventive or corrective actions and related root-cause analyses. We also spoke
with NEIC staff who had concerns about safety and health at NEIC caused by
multiple issues, including a fear of reprisal for reporting job-related accidents.
These findings raise concerns about NEIC maintaining a safe workplace for all
employees that is free from recognized occupational safety and health hazards, as
required.
NEIC Progress on Addressing Safety and Health Concerns
We reviewed 77 safety and health related reports with 467 documented concerns
from FYs 2014 through 2020. These included internal and external safety and
health audits, incident reports, and laboratory walkthroughs. Laboratory
walkthroughs are conducted monthly by laboratory staff at the direction of
management to ensure safety. According to OCEFT, walkthroughs are attended
by management to ensure follow-up is conducted on any issues identified. We
considered all walkthroughs that took place in the same month as one safety and
health related report.
21-P-0131
22
-------
In total, there are hundreds of documented concerns in the laboratory
walkthroughs, ranging from objects obstructing an emergency eyewash to
improperly labeled hazardous waste containers. We found evidence that many of
the laboratory walkthrough concerns were addressed. Concerns, such as adequate
laboratory ventilation and employee chemical exposure monitoring, required
more extensive corrective actions, and NEIC is in the process of addressing these
specific concerns.
Due to the large number of concerns identified, we followed up on a selected
subset of 25 concerns. This subset includes concerns that were repetitive and
occurred over many years or audits, had potential to do serious harm, or could
create a significant impact on NEIC operations. These included:
• Seven concerns about laboratory equipment and facility issues, including
concerns related to hazardous waste at the facility.
• Six concerns about safety and health incidents, such as injuries.
• Two concerns about NEIC's Occupational Safety and Health Committee
and duties of the safety, health, and environmental program manager.
• Two concerns related to reviews not completed.
• Two concerns about training issues.
• Six concerns about policies, procedures, and manual issues.
We found that 20 of the 25 concerns were addressed, four are in the process of
being addressed, and one safety and health concern persists. Described below are
other safety and health concerns we identified throughout our audit.
Required Internal Audits and Management Reviews Were Not
Conducted
NEIC did not conduct the required internal SHMS audits in 2015, 2017, and 2019,
nor did it conduct the required SHMS management reviews in 2017, 2018, and
2019.
The internal SHMS audit and the SHMS management review are required to be
conducted annually. Safety and health audits assess NEIC's compliance with
environmental, fire protection, and safety and health requirements and Agency
policies, including the effectiveness of the NEIC's SHMS and status of NEIC's
conformance with applicable laws, regulations, and Agency policies. Internal
audits are conducted to identify nonconformities, commendable practices, and
areas that would benefit from improvements. The SHMS management reviews
involve reviewing data and information related to the efficacy and efficiency of
the NEIC SHMS management system. Reviews include assessing opportunities
for improvement and the need for changes to the SHMS, including the safety and
health policy and objectives.
21-P-0131
23
-------
According to NEIC senior management, no records can be found that provide the
reason an internal audit and management review were not performed prior to
2017. The SHMS coordinator, the Quality section chief, the branch chief, and the
NEIC deputy director who were serving in 2017 are no longer with NEIC. In
addition, the SHMS management review was not conducted in 2018. According
to NEIC, a new SHMS coordinator was hired in April 2018, replacing the
previous SHMS coordinator who had departed almost a year prior. In that interim
period, safety and health duties were distributed among several staff members.
NEIC added that it is likely, in the reconsolidation of the safety and health duties,
the 2018 management review was overlooked. In addition, during construction
associated with the co-location project with the Region 8 laboratory, some of the
audits were temporarily suspended, as—according to OECA and NEIC
management—it was "impracticable to conduct audits due to the scope and scale
of the construction."
While NEIC did not conduct the required internal SHMS audits in 2015, 2017,
and 2019 or the required SHMS management reviews in 2017, 2018, and 2019,
both were conducted in 2016. According to NEIC, the results of the 2020 internal
audit were presented to the management team as part of the management review
on December 3, 2020.
The results of these audits are to be used by NEIC to improve safety and health. A
May 2019 external audit conducted by the EPA's Safety, Health, and
Environmental Management Program identified that throughout NEIC laboratory
spaces, new and existing eyewashes and emergency showers were installed within
six feet of existing electrical outlets that are not ground-fault circuit interrupter
protected, which could cause electrocution. Since then, NEIC installed
appropriate ground-fault circuit interrupter outlets. In another example, NEIC
added the "Hazardous Waste" label to hazardous waste containers after the
2019 external audit found that those containers were not labeled as required.
According to the NEIC Quality Management Plan, as problems that need
attention are identified through the various assessments, management facilitates a
process to implement satisfactory solutions.
According to NEIC's Management Review operating procedure, "The outputs
from SHMS management reviews shall include any decisions and actions related
to possible changes to (1) safety and health performance, (2) safety and health
policy and objectives, (3) resources, and (4) other elements of the SHMS."
Additionally, according to the Internal Audits of the NEIC Management System
operating procedure, audit results "should include identification of commendable
practices and any deficiencies or nonconformities, and provide an opportunity for
reviewing, clarifying, and verifying deficiencies or nonconformities." As the
internal audits and management reviews were not conducted, the results are not
available to improve NEIC. The results from the audits and reviews may have
been particularly helpful during the co-location construction project with the
Region 8 Laboratory in 2018 and 2019, when additional hazards were present.
21-P-0131
24
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Problems
NEIC has received multiple documented concerns related to hazardous waste
management. Hazardous waste contains properties that can have a harmful effect
on human health and the environment if it is improperly managed. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act—enforced for the Agency by OECA—is the
primary law governing hazardous waste, including its generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal. Waste must be managed in accordance with
applicable state and federal regulations. Due to the nature of its work, NEIC
generates different waste streams, including contaminated sampling equipment,
disposable personal protective equipment, and field-testing waste. The NEIC
Laboratory Branch is responsible for managing the primary hazardous waste
streams generated at NEIC, including case samples and stock chemicals.
Approximately 35 hazardous waste management issues were identified at NEIC
from internal and external audits from FYs 2016 through 2020, including failure
to make an accurate hazardous waste determination, failure to properly label
hazardous waste containers, and failure to indicate hazards of the contents. On
January 7, 2020, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
inspected NEIC laboratory space and identified several deficiencies related to
hazardous waste, resulting in a $30,400 administrative penalty for the EPA.
According to some NEIC staff we interviewed, hazardous waste issues were not
taken seriously by senior management even after previous audits identified these
issues. Four comments, from four interviewees, are included below as examples
of the concerns expressed to the OIG.
Concerns expressed by some NEIC staff during OIG interviews regarding waste management
• One staff member predicted hazardous waste issues would occur because the staff member felt that
managers did not know what they were doing and do not care about safety. The staff member added
that management is not engaged, do not self-reflect, and do not take the blame for anything.
• One staff member commented that NEIC management did not make hazardous waste a priority and
never allowed the responsible staff the time and resources required for the hazardous waste job.
• One staff member said that hazardous waste violations discovered by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment were an issue and such violations have never been an issue in the past.
The staff member added that management should have come in and worked to understand priorities,
made adjustments, and made sure NEIC complied with regulations.
• One staff member commented that management is so focused on conducting the same number of
inspections with shorter timelines and less staff—and hazardous waste violations were a direct result
of this focus on output.
According to the NEIC director, ancillary duties, such as safety and health and
waste management, are high priority. The director added that the 2020 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act violations were unexpected, as these violations
occurred despite NEIC's prior knowledge that the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment would conduct an inspection. According to the NEIC
21-P-0131
25
-------
director, the employee in charge of hazardous waste compliance had assured
management that everything was ready in advance of the inspection. This was not
the case, as evidenced by the inspection results, uncontested by NEIC, from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The director added that
NEIC has hired a contractor to assist with NEIC's hazardous waste management.
NEIC provided supporting evidence to demonstrate that NEIC has taken actions
to address the violations. Furthermore, safety and health and waste management
are incorporated into the annual performance reviews for applicable staff and,
according to the director, continue to be management priorities.
Noncompliance with Safety Incident Reporting Operating Procedure
NEIC's Safety Incident Reporting operating procedure states that employees
should "immediately report" all job-related injuries, illnesses, accidents, or
incidents to their supervisor. The procedure also states that "[i]f an employee
considers an existing work condition or situation to be a health or safety hazard or
potential hazard, it is his/her responsibility to report it directly to his/her
supervisor, or, in the field, to the project manager. This reporting can be done
without fear of reprisal." The EPA
Office of Mission Support's Near
Miss Reporting Procedures for
Employees and Supervisors further
clarifies that EPA employees who
were involved in, witnessed, or
identified a near-miss incident should
report the incident within 24 hours to
their supervisor. Anonymous
reporting is allowed. According to
NEIC and EPA procedures, EPA
Form 1340-1, "Injury, Illness & Near
Miss Report," is to be filed with the
SHMS coordinator within 48 hours of
the incident being reported to a supervisor. Therefore, within 72 hours of
identifying a near miss, EPA Form 1340-1 should be completed to help identify
areas for hazard reduction and prevention. Per the EPA's procedures related to
this form, to assist in prevention, the SHMS coordinator should evaluate near-
miss occurrences and describe the results of the evaluation and the corrective
actions taken or planned. The procedure further states that an evaluation of each
near-miss report should be completed within two weeks of receiving the form
from an employee, supervisor, or other source.
NEIC did not follow the protocol for two near misses described in more detail
below. From 2014 through March 2020, NEIC had 32 safety and health
incidents—five of which resulted in injury or illness. There were no documented
incidents occurring in 2016. Of the 32 incidents, 12 were documented on EPA
Form 1340-1 more than 72 hours after the incident took place. Timely reporting
Near miss. "[I]s any work-related event,
potential occurrence, incident, action, or
condition that could have resulted in a
significant personal injury or illness or
property damage, but instead either the
injury, illness, or property damage was
minor; was averted through prompt
mitigative action; or did not occur due to
timing or separation by distance or
location."
— NEIC Safety Incident Reporting
operating procedure
21-P-0131
26
-------
and prompt investigation of incidents and accidents is necessary to prevent similar
or repeat occurrences. Per NEIC and EPA procedures, an investigation should
identify causes of the incident and lead to the correction and abatement of the
hazard. The SHMS coordinator is to maintain a written record of the incident and
findings and evaluate any identified nonconformities.
October 2019 Near Miss: Explosive Hazard
On October 31, 2019, an explosive hazard
arising from the improper handling of an
explosive chemical occurred in NEIC's
laboratory, which constituted a safety and
health related near miss. The incident was not
reported or investigated in a timely manner,
according to NEIC and EPA protocols.
Instead, for this incident, EPA Form 1340-1
was completed on January 21, 2020, almost
three months after the explosive hazard
occurred. As a result, NEIC did not follow up
on the incident until January 2020. On
April 6, 2020, NEIC initiated an examination into the reporting delay. According
to NEIC's near-miss corrective action form, results from this investigation
showed that the responsible supervisor did not immediately recognize the near
miss as a reportable incident, did not understand the supervisor's role and
responsibility for investigation and follow-up, and had not received formal
training on preventive and corrective actions and related root-cause analysis.
According to OCEFT, the supervisor had received formal training and the Agency
took the corrective action of removing the supervisor from management. The
near-miss incident ultimately resulted in NEIC taking corrective action, including
online training for supervisors and senior chemists on root-cause analysis for
forensic service providers; updating two NEIC operating procedures (Safety
Incident Reporting and Corrective Action, Prevention Action, and Handling
Complaints); and training on the updated Safety Incident Reporting operating
procedure. Additionally, the near miss resulted in a preventive action that
included a training refresher on proper laboratory practices. Specifically, the
chemist responsible for the near miss received counseling to not leave unattended
volatile and flammable liquids on hot plates.
January 2020 Near Miss: Potential Exposure to Toxic Substance
Another near miss occurred on January 3, 2020, when an employee was exposed
to an unknown substance, which may have been the toxic substance strychnine.
EPA Form 1340-1 was completed seven days after the incident was reported to
the SMHS coordinator. According to NEIC documentation, it was difficult to
reconstruct the series of events that led to the near miss due to the time elapsed
Explosive chemical. "A solid or liquid
chemical, which is in itself capable by
chemical reaction of producing gas at
such a temperature and pressure and
at such a speed as to cause damage
to the surroundings."
—Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's
Hazard Classification Guidance
21-P-0131
27
-------
between the incident and the investigation; the number of staff involved; and the
separation of an employee from the Agency before an interview could be
completed, leading to information loss. For this near-miss incident, NEIC
conducted a four-hour laboratory safety training class in March 2020 and
reiterated good housekeeping practices.
The lack of timely investigations by NEIC into these two near misses diminished
the ability to determine the causes, mitigate hazards, and prevent future workplace
injuries and illnesses. Records such as the EPA Form 1340-1 contain information
that helps employers, employees, and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration evaluate the safety of a workplace, understand industry hazards,
and implement worker protections to reduce and eliminate hazards and prevent
future workplace injuries and illnesses. Continual improvement in safety and
health performance, including compliance, is accomplished, in part, by timely
analysis of safety and health-related incidents.
Staff Concerns About Safety and Health at NEIC
Qualitative data collected during our interviews indicated that a majority of
current staff interviewed (22 of 26) are concerned about safety and health at
NEIC. Staff shared concerns that senior management does not prioritize safety
and health (19 of 26). Of the nine former NEIC employees we interviewed, seven
expressed safety and health concerns, including a former SHMS coordinator who
left NEIC due, in part, to health and safety concerns. NEIC's stated policy is to
provide a workplace for all employees that is free from recognized occupational
safety and health hazards that may cause serious injury or death.
Concerns Reporting Safety and Health and Other Issues
According to NEIC's operating procedures, employees should immediately report
all job-related injuries, illnesses, accidents, or incidents to their supervisor without
fear of reprisal. NEIC's Safety and Health Management System manual says that
management should encourage staff involvement in incident investigations.
Despite this, documents from NEIC's Occupational Safety and Health Committee
meeting minutes from November 2019 state, "Staff may be incentivized to not
report spills, as they have been written
up/admonished by managers in the past for
reporting spills." We asked NEIC staff about
their comfort level reporting QA and safety
and health issues, as well as opportunities for
improvement, to management. Our
interviews found that 25 current and former
staff had concerns reporting safety and
health issues, and 13 current staff were not
comfortable reporting safety and health
concerns primarily due to fear of reprisal.
Fifty percent of the current staff we
interviewed during our audit were
not comfortable reporting safety and
health concerns primarily due to fear
of reprisal, retaliation, or other
reasons. This is despite the Safety
Incident Reporting operating
procedure specifically stating that
employees should report all job-
related injuries, illnesses, accidents,
or incidents without fear of reprisal.
21-P-0131
28
-------
Four comments, from four interviewees, are included below as examples of the
concerns expressed to the OIG.
Concerns expressed by some NEIC staff during OIG interviews regarding comfort level in reporting
concerns, including safety and health incidents or opportunities for improvement
• There is a culture of fear regarding reporting concerns.
• Staff members are not comfortable reporting concerns—such as those concerning health and safety,
quality assurance, and opportunities for improvement—to NEIC management, and staff members
cannot do anything without fear of reprisal.
• One staff member commented that management has never taken responsibility for anything and looks
to blame staff. The staff member does not feel comfortable going to management with concerns.
• One staff member preferred reporting to the Quality Team members as they are easy to talk to, rather
than bringing issues to management. The same staff member prefers talking to quality assurance and
health and safety personnel but would not talk with management—even about quality issues—because
management is not receptive to hearing suggestions unless it is about staff improvement. Managers
are not interested in discussing management improvement.
This audit did not review specific allegations of reprisal at NEIC for reporting
job-related injuries, illnesses, accidents, or incidents. Our focus was on the fear of
reporting rather than on substantiating incidents of reprisal, as the Safety Incident
Reporting operating procedure specifically states that employees should report all
job-related injuries, illnesses, accidents, or incidents without fear of reprisal.
Reprisal allegations identified during this audit were referred to another OIG
component office for review.
When asked how to ensure staff report safety and health concerns, the NEIC
director responded that the center now has an experienced SHMS coordinator,
which demonstrates that senior management takes safety and health seriously.
The director also said that lack of resources may have caused the perception that
safety and health was not a priority. The director said that staff have been
reminded on numerous occasions that staff are obligated to report safety and
health issues and that management has taken reported issues seriously.
Safety and Health Issues Due to Co-Location with Region 8 Laboratory
In 2018, the EPA started a co-location project with the Region 8 laboratory and
NEIC. This multiyear project involved construction and reconfiguration of NEIC
facilities at the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood. Numerous safety and health
concerns stemming from this co-location have been documented, including 82
findings from the external safety and health audit conducted by the EPA's Safety,
Health and Environmental Management Program in May 2019. Several high-
priority findings, which have been subsequently addressed, resulted in new and
existing eyewashes and emergency showers installed within six feet of existing
electrical outlets and not protected by a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Other
findings involved hazardous waste management, discussed in the "Hazardous
21-P-0131
29
-------
Waste Management Problems" section above, and fume hood issues discussed in
the "Concerns with Nonfunctioning Laboratory Hoods" section below. In our
interviews, eight NEIC staff also shared concerns related to the construction and
other issues from the co-location. Concerns from three interviewees are noted
below.
Concerns expressed by some NEIC staff during OIG interviews regarding NEIC's co-location with EPA
Region 8 Laboratory
• One staff member commented that co-location project safety issues brought to management were
dismissed or ignored. Management does not emphasize safety, quality, and environmental
management; rather, it emphasizes getting things done.
• One staff member commented that during the co-location process, outlets by an emergency shower
did not have a ground-fault interrupter switch and if water contacted the outlet, a person could be
electrocuted. The staff member also commented that during the co-location project, management
pressured staff to get work done.
• One staff member commented that when there was construction in the laboratories, the staff member
did not feel safe. Management pushed staff to pretend it was business as usual.
OCEFT said that the Office of Mission Support and the General Services
Administration, not NEIC, were responsible for construction during the
co-location project. OCEFT said that NEIC management would raise concerns to
the Office of Mission Support and the General Services Administration but lacked
the authority to address the concerns itself. We found evidence that the Office of
Mission Support was aware of various safety and health issues as a result of a
2019 audit and that NEIC did notify the General Services Administration of issues
requiring correction. According to OCEFT, the issues regarding co-location no
longer exist because they were regarding a temporary work site situation. Yet, as
discussed below in the "Concerns with Nonfunctioning Laboratory Hoods"
section, air handling issues associated with the co-location persist. OCEFT also
cited the co-location project as a reason for not conducting the required safety and
health internal audit and management review in 2017.
Safety and Health Committee
The NEIC Quality Management Plan states that a key element of the SHMS is the
occupational safety and health committee, which is designed to address safety and
health issues and composed of representatives from each NEIC branch, a NEIC
management representative, and contractor representatives. According to NEIC,
the committee was suspended in early 2018, pending plans to consolidate the
NEIC Health and Safety Program, which never materialized. NEIC's Safety and
Health Committee was not fully reconstituted until early 2019. Our interviews
with NEIC staff also highlighted the importance of a safety and health committee
and concerns about its suspension.
21-P-0131
30
-------
SHMS Coordinator Duties
TheNEIC Quality Management Plan states:
A SHMS coordinator ... provides an independent NEIC-wide
focus on safety, health, and environmental management. SHMS
coordinator duties include providing safety training, coordinating a
medical monitoring program, coordinating internal and external
SHMS assessments, and ensuring that NEIC is focused on the
requirements of safety and environmental laws and regulations.
There was no SHMS coordinator from November 2017 through April 2018. The
staff member hired in April 2018 to fill the SHMS coordinator position also did
toxicology project work as a secondary function. According to NEIC senior
management, the duties relating to safety and health were temporarily distributed
among staff when there was no single SHMS coordinator.
OIG interviews of NEIC staff, including former SHMS coordinators, highlighted
confusion about the role of the SHMS coordinator. In May 2020, the SHMS
coordinator departed NEIC, and NEIC hired an industrial hygienist as the new
SHMS coordinator. In our interviews, 14 current and former NEIC employees
shared concerns related to SHMS coordinator duties; examples of concerns from
two interviewees are noted below.
Concerns expressed by some NEIC staff during OIG interviews regarding SHMS coordinator duties
• One staff member commented that NEIC management did not allow the time or resources required for
the SHMS coordinator to do the job properly and that the previous coordinator only did some of the
tasks that the coordinator was required to do. The staff member added that some of the duties were
divided up and there were no assurances that things were getting completed. The staff member
explained that dividing up these duties is not something that has been traditionally done in a
laboratory setting, but NEIC is moving in the right direction with a dedicated SHMS coordinator.
• One staff member commented that a lot of safety duties were doled out to chemists and that NEIC had
not emphasized hiring health and safety staff. The staff member explained that when the SHMS
coordinator was hired, this person conducted only partial SHMS duties, proving NEIC does not prioritize
safety. In addition, when the SHMS coordinator, waste control officers, and others left NEIC, all these
duties were delegated to laboratory staff in a haphazard fashion; it was a crazy juggling act, the staff
member said. The staff member added that the chemists did the best they could but safety and quality
were on the backburner and speed was prioritized. Duties for health and safety and waste
management were spread out. The staff member hopes that the SHMS coordinator and management
does not split up the SHMS duties among staff. The staff member also added that there were SHMS
coordinator duties assigned to the staff member; however, the staff member never received any
training and found this frustrating.
21-P-0131
31
-------
Concerns with Nonfunctioning Laboratory Hoods
NEIC uses fume hoods to protect laboratory employees working with
flammable or toxic chemicals. As part of the co-location project with Region 8,
almost all of NEIC's 27 hoods were retrofitted for energy conserving, low-flow
operation. In November 2019, a testing service found that none of the hoods could
be certified due to overall deficiencies in air flow, resulting from problems with
the air handling system. Since certified hoods are necessary to continue some
laboratory operations, NEIC scheduled and funded a local testing service to test
and certify five of the hoods for use in March 2020. The five hoods were certified
that month.
As of October 2020, those five hoods were the only ones certified for use. Prior to
November 2019, it is unclear whether NEIC hoods were operational but not
necessarily certified for use. From November 2019 through March 2020, NEIC
had no hoods that were certified for use. According to NEIC, no systemic
corrections to the air handling system have been made, and the project contractor
has not yet certified the remaining hoods in the NEIC facility. NEIC further stated
that when contracting issues are resolved, the remaining hoods may be tested and
certified. In our interviews, five NEIC employees expressed concerns over the
hoods used in the laboratory; examples of concerns from three interviewees are
noted below.
Concerns expressed by some NEIC staff during OIG interviews regarding concerns
over NEIC fume hood operation
• One staff member commented that when hoods go down, they may not know, and when that
happens, they are opening themselves up to exposure or worse.
• One staff member commented that safety is not prioritized. The staff member added that, at one
point, NEIC had only one or two operating hoods and staff had to shuffle stuff between hoods.
• One staff member commented that they were threatened with reprimands for not doing work on
noncertified hoods or hoods that were broken.
OCEFT and NEIC senior management said that these deficiencies are not within
their control to correct, stating, "Construction related matters concerning the co-
location project, including problems with the air handling units, fall under the
purview of the Office of Mission Support and the General Services
Administration." As noted above, while we found evidence that NEIC notified the
General Services Administration of safety and health issues as a result of the co-
location project, it is unclear the extent to which OCEFT and NEIC elevated
issues related to laboratory hood operation within their own management chains
to ensure timely correction.
21-P-0131
32
-------
Conclusions
As an environmental forensic center that conducts both fieldwork and laboratory
analysis, NEIC faces many safety and health hazards and risks associated with the
services it provides. The NEIC safety and health policy aligns with NEIC's core
mission and includes commitments to continually improve the safety and health
program, prevent injuries and ill health, and maintain regulatory compliance.
While our audit found that NEIC is addressing many findings from the various
and ongoing safety and health related audits, we also identified multiple concerns
associated with:
• Required internal audit and management reviews not being conducted.
• Hazardous waste mismanagement.
• Noncompliance with the safety incident reporting procedure.
• Staff and other documented concerns about safety and health at NEIC,
including:
o Staff comfort level in reporting safety and health and other issues,
o Safety and health issues due to the co-location project,
o Inconsistent operation of the safety and health committee,
o Confusion over SHMS coordinator duties,
o Concerns with nonfunctioning laboratory hoods.
The NEIC safety and health policy aligns with NEIC's core mission and includes
commitments to continually improve safety and health performance, prevent
injuries and ill health, and maintain regulatory compliance. Yet, safety and health
concerns have persisted. NEIC needs to consistently complete required audits and
reviews, prioritize hazardous waste management, conduct safety incident
reporting according to policies and procedures, address staff fear of reprisals for
the reporting of safety and health as well as other issues, and further demonstrate
to NEIC staff that safety and health are priorities for NEIC management.
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
3. Conduct a follow-up review of hazardous waste management at the
National Enforcement Investigations Center to determine whether it is
complying with relevant statutes and regulations and verify internal
controls are in place to ensure future compliance.
21-P-0131
33
-------
4. Provide annual training on safety incident reporting procedures to all
National Enforcement Investigations Center employees and managers,
including training on preventive or corrective actions and related root-
cause analysis.
5. Develop and incorporate metrics that address safety and health issues and
staff concerns into National Enforcement Investigations Center senior
management performance standards, such as collecting anonymous
feedback from all staff annually.
6. In coordination with the assistant administrator for Mission Support,
verify that all laboratory hoods at the National Enforcement Investigations
Center are operational and certified for use.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency agreed with Recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 6. We found the
corrective actions provided for Recommendations 4 and 6 are acceptable and
consider these recommendations resolved with corrective actions pending.
For Recommendation 3, the intent was for an independent or external party to
conduct a follow-up review of hazardous waste management atNEIC. Based on
the Agency's response to our draft report, we revised the recommendation to
remove PIQA as the organization responsible for following up. Based on the
information provided after our exit meeting with the Agency, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act inspectors in NEIC's Field Branch, in addition to
the laboratory section chief, have oversight authority to ensure compliance with
hazardous waste regulations. Additionally, the Agency said that Region 8's waste
management lead and a contractor have been hired to assist the NEIC waste
control officer with properly executing the officer's duties. We acknowledge that
these are additional internal controls NEIC has put in place to ensure compliance.
We continue to believe that an independent or external party needs to review
NEIC's enhanced internal controls to verify they are working as intended to
ensure future compliance. The recommendation is therefore unresolved with
resolution efforts in progress.
For Recommendation 5, the corrective action provided by NEIC —"to review
senior manager performance standards to ensure that their commitment to
maintain a dedicated Health and Safety FTE and complete annual audits
continues"—is helpful. However, the corrective action, as written, does not fully
address other safety and health issues and staff concerns identified in this chapter,
such as fear of reprisal for reporting concerns and following the Safety Incident
Reporting operating procedure. The recommendation is therefore unresolved with
21-P-0131
34
-------
resolution efforts in progress. We revised the wording in Recommendation 5 to be
consistent with Recommendations 9 and 10.
The Agency disagreed with our characterization of staff safety and health
concerns. We have made clarifications to our report but, ultimately, we stand by
our conclusions. While we did not verify every staff concern identified during our
interviews, the concerns we present in the report are supported by documentary,
testimonial, or other evidence demonstrating that there is a reasonable basis for
the concern. Further, testimonial evidence is a key data point in determining
compliance with criteria, such as that staff should report safety and health
concerns without fear of reprisal according to NEIC's Safety Incident Reporting
operating procedure. It is apparent from our interviews of current and former
NEIC employees, including former SHMS coordinators, that fear of reprisal
exists. OCEFT management requested examples of reprisal we gathered, but we
do not share identifying information that would violate interviewee
confidentiality, as it may have a chilling effect on the willingness of Agency staff
share information with the OIG. Reprisal allegations identified during this audit
were referred to another OIG component office for review.
We included the Agency's full response to our draft report in Appendix C.
21-P-0131
35
-------
Chapter 5
NEIC Faces Severe Staffing Shortage Due to Work
Environment, Attrition, Difficulty Hiring
NEIC is challenged by high attrition among staff and the inability to backfill
positions due to multiple factors, including limits on hiring and, for the hiring
approvals it does have, a slow hiring process. NEIC's lack of adequate staffing to
meet Agency goals has been a concern since at least NEIC's 2016 self-
assessment. In 2017, PIQA reported that attrition has led to many vacant
positions, with no backfilling and existing work being dispersed among remaining
staff. OCEFT and NEIC senior management cite lack of staff as a main concern
for NEIC. While retirement eligibility is a concern of NEIC senior management,
our interviews with staff indicated that the working environment is directly
related to staff attrition and intent to leave NEIC. The GAO's internal control
standards require management to demonstrate a commitment to competence,
including recruiting, developing, and retaining competent individuals, along with
succession and contingency plans. Should staffing levels continue to fall, NEIC
risks a reduction in analytical capabilities and endangers the ability to accomplish
its mission to protect human health and the environment by supporting the EPA's
civil and criminal enforcement efforts.
NEIC Has Experienced Significant Staff Reductions
According to NEIC-provided data, from FYs 2014 through 2020, NEIC has lost
27 full-time employees, representing a net reduction of 32 percent from 2014
levels (Figure 3). Senior management at OCEFT and NEIC agree that the biggest
challenge facing NEIC is staffing. In comparison, the EPA's total workforce
declined by 8 percent over this same period.
Figure 3: NEIC's reduction in staff numbers, FYs 2014-2020
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
^^NEIC Staff
Source: OIG summary of information provided by NEIC. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0131
36
-------
According to the OCEFT director, as budgets started to shrink, experienced senior
staff began to leave without the opportunity to pass on historical knowledge.
Additionally, staff buyouts complicated the ability to backfill. The director
confirmed thatNEIC needs more chemists and laboratory personnel. Another
hiring need is administrative support, the lack of which has resulted in specialists
performing administrative work alongside their project duties. According to
OECA:
NEIC's budget is largely comprised of the S&T [Science and
Technology] appropriation. This is a very small portion of the
Agency's overall budget, and almost every dollar of S&T [Science
and Technology] by OECA goes towards NEIC. The issue is that
the limited amount of S&T [Science and Technology] funding
provided to OECA, and OECA's traditional high FTE [full-time
equivalent] costs, means that any reductions from the Agency in
S&T have a disproportionate impact on our FTE as there are very
few extramural dollars from which OECA can absorb such
reductions. OECA has been working with the Agency to try to
obtain more S&T [Science and Technology] resources to address
these reductions over the last seven years, however, OECA cannot
substitute other types of funding to address the shortfalls.
NEIC is part of a larger criminal enforcement program, and staff hiring is
considered from an officewide perspective. The OCEFT director explained that
OCEFT has committed to having 165 special agents in the Criminal Investigation
Division, which represents a large proportion of OCEFT staff. These special
agents investigate alleged criminal violations of federal law. NEIC supports these
special agents through forensic evidence collection, such as sampling, monitoring,
and documenting sites. In addition to its accredited field support, NEIC also
provides forensic analytical support with its accredited laboratory. With more
special agents comes more work for NEIC, given the field and laboratory support
NEIC provides to criminal enforcement investigations.
The OCEFT director stated that NEIC has to compete with other OCEFT
divisions for staff, and NEIC has a lower staffing priority than the Criminal
Investigation Division. The NEIC director also cited resources and staffing levels
as its biggest challenges. Also, while resources have declined, there is still an
expectation to perform at the same level. NEIC chemists are not interchangeable,
as each has a specialty. With fewer chemists, NEIC may have no option but to
reduce services to EPA criminal and civil enforcement programs.
Retirement Eligibility
According NEIC-provided data, as of August 2020, NEIC had 57 full-time
employees, and 19 (33 percent) were eligible for retirement at the end of 2020.
Figure 4 shows the percent of retirement-eligible staff for NEIC, and Figure 5
21-P-0131
37
-------
breaks that down for the Infrastructure and Project Support Branch, Field Branch,
and Laboratory Branch. The Laboratory Branch is at greatest risk of reduction in
services as it has the highest percent of retirement-eligible staff. Having a high
percentage of retirement-eligible staff is not unique to the NEIC. In
February 2020, before a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, then-EPA
Administrator Andrew Wheeler said that 40 percent of the EPA's workforce is
eligible to retire.
Figure 4: NEIC's retirement-eligible staff
Retirement Eligible
Not Retirement Eligible
Source: OIG analysis of information provided by NEIC. (EPA OIG image)
Figure 5: NEIC's retirement-eligible staff by branch
Infrastructure and
Project Support
[
41% 1
1 59%
\ 1
Source: OIG analysis of information provided by NEIC. (EPA OIG images)
There are 16 staff, two supervisors, and one branch chief in the Laboratory
Branch. Historically, this branch has had 35 staff with expertise to provide
36 analytical capabilities, or types of chemical analysis and methods. As of
February 2020, NEIC offers 29 analytical capabilities. Analytical requests, such
as those related to pesticides, are chronically backlogged and—according to
NEIC—will remain in that state indefinitely due to a lack of staff. Eight of the
16 staff became eligible for retirement at the end of FY 2020, and NEIC expects
to lose 35 percent of its laboratory staff in the next three years.
NEIC provides unique analytical capabilities, consultation services, expert
reports, and testimony in support of EPA enforcement investigations and cases.
According to OCEFT and NEIC documents, the laboratory analyzes samples that
are nonroutine and not accepted either at all or at reasonable cost by contract
21-P-0131
38
-------
laboratories. Had all eligible Laboratory Branch staff retired at the end of 2020
without replacements, the branch would have been only able to offer two
analytical capabilities, as opposed to the 29 offered as of February 2020.
According to NEIC documents, for newly hired staff, it can take two years to gain
the competency expected for some laboratory techniques. OCEFT further clarified
that recent hires were able to become competent on certain methods within
six months, while complicated methods may take more time. In addition, training
will take time away from sample analysis and report writing.
For the Field Branch, 45 percent, or eight, management and staff will be eligible
for retirement by February 2023, and NEIC could lose decades of institutional
knowledge and regulatory expertise. According to NEIC documents, current
workloads are not sustainable and burnout risk is high. For Field Branch staff, it
may take up to two years for a civil inspector and NEIC technical coordinator to
be credentialed. It will take longer for civil inspectors to be qualified to lead
inspections. It takes a significantly longer time—many years—to become a
national expert.
For the Infrastructure and Project Support Branch, 59 percent, or ten, of the
current staff will reach retirement eligibility by October 2022. As a result, NEIC
anticipates losing capacity for many of its functions. Table 6 highlights
anticipated capacity loss or services impacted as a result of retirement.
Table 6: Anticipated capacity loss resulting from retirement
NEIC branch
and staff
(as of August 2020)
Time frame
Retirement
eligible
Projected impacts based on current staffing
progress
Laboratory Branch
(16 staff)
By February
2023
35%
(six staff)
• Reductions in nearly all analytical capabilities.
• Chronic backlog of analytical requests such as
pesticide analysis.
• Reduced on-site chemistry expertise.
Field Branch
(18 staff)
By February
2023
45%
(eight staff)
• Inability to support complex inspections.
• Acceptance of fewer projects.
• Loss of regulatory expertise, which is vital to civil and
criminal programs.
• Increased workload on Office of Compliance, Office
of Civil Enforcement, and regions.
• Loss of institutional knowledge when experts retire
before knowledge can be transferred.
Infrastructure and
Project Support
Branch (17 staff)
By October
2022
59%
(ten staff)
Reductions or delays in all branch services, including:
• Shipping and receiving.
• Property management.
• Contracts, interagency agreements, and
purchasing.
• Technical editing.
• QMS and accreditation.
• EMS.
• Facilities operations and maintenance.
• Data management and database maintenance.
Source: OIG analysis based on data provided by NEIC. (EPA OIG table)
21-P-0131 39
-------
Succession Planning and Difficulties Hiring
Both the EPA and NEIC have a high percentage of retirement-eligible staff. The
EPA can address this issue through workforce planning and succession
management. Workforce planning is an essential task of government agencies,
designed to systematically identify and address the gaps between the workforce
each agency has today and the one it needs to meet future needs.2 The EPA will
be competing for talent with other federal agencies, as well as the private sector.
This makes it even more critical that NEIC develop and execute workforce plans
to address competency gaps and implement succession plans to fill those gaps.
NEIC provided us documents that demonstrate gaps and future loss of capacity.
The OCEFT director further clarified, stating that "NEIC has utilized any number
of creative solutions to address the hiring gaps (such as cross-training staff across
branches or areas of expertise), but a truly sustainable solution requires a long-
term commitment to appropriately staffing the Center."
As noted above, the 2016 NEIC self-inspection found two issues relevant to
staffing and attrition—lack of adequate staffing to meet Agency goals and a hiring
system that has been slow and ineffective at recruiting the technical expertise
needed at NEIC. According to NEIC, the ability to address these issues is outside
of NEIC's control and not unique to NEIC. NEIC provided us evidence of the
business case it has made for additional hires, which NEIC presented to OECA
leadership in 2020. The NEIC director explained that there are efforts to hire
chemists, engineers, and administrative staff, but hiring is not keeping pace with
those leaving.
NEIC management also noted that the work practices and timeliness of the EPA's
human resources is not within NEIC's control and, while the speed at which
hiring occurs has improved, hiring is generally still slow. The 2017 PIQA
inspection report also highlighted lack of administrative support as an issue, but
NEIC has chosen to prioritize hiring for technical roles. According to NEIC,
administrative support has been reduced across the Agency, and these functions
have been devolved to staff as part of their workload. NEIC management said that
this is not an action item that it has much, if any, influence over.
Work Environment Contributing to High Attrition at NEIC
While retirement eligibility is a concern for NEIC senior management, we learned
that many staff intend to leave NEIC regardless of their retirement eligibility. Of
the current staff-level employees we interviewed, 15 of 26 (58 percent) shared
their intent to leave NEIC as soon as possible—in other words, they are actively
looking for work elsewhere or considering taking early retirement. Of these
employees, 14 of 15 (93 percent) indicated the work environment as their reason
for intending to leave. We also interviewed nine former NEIC employees, eight of
2 Workforce planning requirements are issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and defined in 5 C.F.R.
Part 250, Subpart B, Strategic Human Capital Management, effective April 11, 2017.
21-P-0131
40
-------
whom shared that the work environment contributed or caused them to leave
NEIC. Both current and former employees expressed fear of retaliation, the use of
reprimands by senior management, a lack of trust in senior management, and low
staff morale as reasons for leaving. Four comments, from four interviewees, are
included below as examples of the concerns shared with the OIG.
NEIC staff concerns expressed during OIG interviews regarding NEIC work environment
• One staff member commented that senior management does not foster an environment where one
feels appreciated. During a meeting about the results of the EVS, morale, and succession planning,
someone mentioned that chemists used to work until retirement eligible or beyond. A NEIC senior
manager then asked if anyone wanted leave, they would shake their hand. The staff member added
that senior management was not concerned about transfer of knowledge or fostering an environment
of continuing excellence at NEIC.
• One staff member has seriously considered leaving NEIC because staff members are not appreciated by
those in charge. That staff member said that scientists feel good about the project work they have
done and that the work was appreciated by other scientists but not by NEIC management. The staff
member added that senior managers think that the staff cannot do anything right, and it was clear that
management does not care to retain experts.
• One former staff member left NEIC due to the culture and a lack of management support for frontline
supervisors and scientists. The former staff member added that senior management made the culture
worse by focusing on project turnaround time over quality, fostered an us-versus-them mentality
between management and staff, and did not understand nuance needed to change.
• One staff member commented that there is a culture of fear at NEIC and that saying anything that may
be construed as negative about management could result in reprisal.
The 2017 PIQA inspection report included a finding related to a lack of
confidence and trust in NEIC's management team. As a result, NEIC
implemented corrective actions as described in Table 5. In addition, the OCEFT
director noted that "since 2016, the entire NEIC management team except for one
(a manager who is now in a different management position) has changed."
Interviews with staff indicate there still exists a general lack of trust in NEIC
management and leadership. OCEFT responded that employees' negative view of
their work environment can be influenced by being held to proper performance
standards, as well as being held accountable in misconduct and disciplinary
matters.
EPA's 60-Day Inspection Report Goal Highlights Disconnect Between
Management and Staff over Accountability and Work Environment
From our discussions with the OCEFT director and NEIC senior management and
staff, we observed a disconnect between management and staff regarding views
on personnel accountability and how accountability is achieved. This disconnect
is largely manifested through views on the June 2018 EPA policy that established
an agencywide 60-day time frame for completing inspection reports. NEIC staff
shared in interviews that the 60-day standard puts undue pressure to quickly
21-P-0131
41
-------
complete, oftentimes, complex projects. NEIC senior management stated that the
60-day standard is a goal, that flexibility is granted as needed, and that missing
the 60-day standard holds no adverse consequences for employees.
NEIC explained that the EPA's 60-day standard helped to address customer
complaints that NEIC inspection reports were taking too much time and were
delaying civil and criminal enforcement proceedings. NEIC management
acknowledged that it has been a challenging culture change, but one that was
worth pursuing in the name of efficiency and accountability for NEIC to deliver
on its mission. NEIC management said that in communicating this goal to
employees, management explains that flexibility is available and encourages staff
to communicate any potential delays so that senior management is aware and can
address the issues, if possible. According to OCEFT, the majority of NEIC
criminal reports have, in fact, missed the 60-day goal and no staff have been
reprimanded.
Ten staff members shared with us that NEIC has improved its project completion
time and that, in that past, the primary customer complaint was about project time
frames. Thirteen staff members also shared with us that they perceive NEIC
management is not accepting of project delays and feel undue pressure to meet the
60-day standard above all else, contributing to a negative work environment.
NEIC EVS Results Highlight Work Environment Concerns
We reviewed the Federal EVS results for 2019 and noted that NEIC's results are
well below the overall Agency results and below other EPA laboratory results.
We also compared the results to other EPA laboratories in a variety of locations
across the country, specifically laboratories within the Office of Air and Radiation
and the Office of Research and Development. While services offered at EPA
laboratories vary, comparison offers a useful frame of reference.
The EVS questions included in Table 7 demonstrate concerns from NEIC
employees. Additional EVS questions are included in Appendix B. Results
include the percent and number of survey respondents who answered
affirmatively to the questions asked. For these EVS questions, NEIC's results are,
on average, 22 percent lower than the overall Agency results. The NEIC
Laboratory Branch results are 38 percent lower than the overall Agency results.
Table 7: Subset of questions and affirmative results from 2019 Federal EVS
NEIC
Other EPA laboratories
All EPA
Question
All
Lab
Branch
Narraganset
Lab
Gulf
Breeze
Lab
Duluth
Lab
Ann Arbor
Lab
Employees are protected from
health and safety hazards on
the job.
54%
of 49
31%
of 17
100%
of 35
80%
of 26
94%
of 38
96%
of 25
83%
of 8,034
21-P-0131
42
-------
NEIC
Other EPA laboratories
All EPA
Question
All
Lab
Branch
Narraganset
Lab
Gulf
Breeze
Lab
Duluth
Lab
Ann Arbor
Lab
Prohibited personnel practices (for
example, illegally discriminating for
or against any employee/applicant)
are not tolerated.
45%
of 46
34%
of 16
94%
of 31
71%
of 25
90%
of 32
71%
of 20
70%
of 7,171
In my organization, senior leaders
generate high levels of motivation
and commitment in the workforce.
16%
of 49
10%
of 17
28%
of 32
16%
of 25
46%
of 35
23%
of 24
34%
of 7,974
Considering everything, how
satisfied are you with your
organization?
36%
of 48
15%
of 17
50%
of 34
34%
of 26
50%
of 38
65%
of 25
56%
of 8,021
Overall, how good a job do you feel
is being done by the manager
directly above your immediate
supervisor?
46%
of 49
27%
of 17
65%
of 34
72%
of 26
82%
of 38
52%
of 25
66%
of 7,725
Are you considering leaving within
one year?
53%
of 49
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20%
of 25
27%
of 8,352
Source: OIG summary of data from the Office of Personnel Management. (EPA OIG table)
Notes: Results include the percent of survey respondents that answered affirmatively to the question asked out
of the total respondents to the question. "N/A" means results are not available for that EPA suborganization. The
overall NEIC response rate for this survey was 89 percent, and the NEIC Lab response rate was 94 percent. The
overall EPA response rate was 63 percent. Not all questions garnered the same number of responses because
not all respondents may have answered the question or respondents may not have had a basis to answer a
particular question. As a result, the number of respondents varies based on the question.
In response to the low EVS results from the previous year, NEIC senior
management held listening sessions with staff in March 2019, but our interviews
with staff suggested the issues remain.
According to the GAO's internal control standards, management sets the tone
throughout the organization by example. The work environment described by
NEIC staff, the pervasive fear of retaliation or reprisal for reporting issues, the
low morale, and the lack of trust in NEIC management, as well as EVS results,
indicate that NEIC's organizational culture needs to improve.
NEIC Efforts to Retain Staff
The GAO's internal control standards state that management should demonstrate
a commitment to recruit, develop, and retain competent individuals. Specifically,
to retain individuals, NEIC senior management should consider providing
incentives to motivate and reinforce expected levels of performance and desired
conduct. When asked what is being done to retain staff at NEIC, the director
explained that it is different for each employee and that NEIC has tried several
approaches. NEIC started to track the staff impacts on NEIC to show the
individual value of each staff member. The NEIC director said that some staff
appreciate awards and NEIC is trying to use awards more meaningfully to
21-P-0131
43
-------
recognize accomplishment. For example, while some offices divide the awards
evenly, NEIC distributes awards based on individual merit.
NEIC management has also attempted to retain staff through various other
approaches. Some examples include involving staff in decisions, such as which
projects NEIC should select to complete; creating a staff-led committee for
planning social activities; and focusing on improved use of ratings to distinguish
performance. According to the director, everyone received high performance
ratings in the past, so there was no meaningful recognition of actual high
performance. NEIC has tried to recalibrate ratings commensurate with actual
employee performance. The director noted that recalibrating ratings may not help
retain all employees but would retain high-performing employees. The director
added that NEIC has tried to improve consistent communication through section,
branch, and all-hands meetings. In spite of all this, as evidenced by the high
attrition, our interviews with staff indicating low morale, and low EVS scores,
additional efforts are needed to retain current staff. In December 2020, NEIC
created its own anonymous suggestion box on its intranet to solicit employee
feedback on how to improve NEIC.
Conclusions
According to NEIC, its operations are based on staff experience and involve
highly complex, technical knowledge. The ability to prepare complex,
significantly contaminated samples for analysis is unique to NEIC. NEIC notes
that almost every EPA laboratory would decline the samples NEIC accepts. It is
generally recognized that NEIC is relied on by the EPA to analyze the most
complex samples requiring nonstandard analytical methods. The ability to prepare
those samples comes from decades of knowledge that can only be passed along
through intense training. In the field, NEIC states that its inspectors have intimate
knowledge of EPA regulations and how the regulations apply to complex industry
processes. With staff attrition, regulatory knowledge may be recovered over time,
but the technical expertise to execute a variety of highly complex inspections and
tie the findings to a regulation will be greatly diminished for the foreseeable
future. NEIC's ability to retain staff is being impacted by a negative work
environment and difficulty hiring new staff. If these issues remain unresolved,
NEIC's ability to fulfill its mission is at risk.
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
7. Develop and implement a staffing plan for the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training incorporating projections of
National Enforcement Investigations Center workload based upon the
21-P-0131
44
-------
number of Criminal Investigation Division agents, the needs of other EPA
enforcement programs, and other factors.
8. In coordination with the assistant administrator for Mission Support,
develop a joint action plan for hiring new staff at the National
Enforcement Investigations Center and promptly address delays in hiring.
9. Develop and incorporate metrics on the National Enforcement
Investigations Center work environment and culture into Office of
Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training senior management
performance standards, such as results from the annual Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey, periodic culture audits, or other methods to measure
progress.
10. Develop and incorporate metrics that address work environment and
culture into National Enforcement Investigations Center senior
management performance standards.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency agreed with Recommendations 7 and 8. For Recommendation 7, the
Agency provided a staffing plan that can be used for workload analysis and
succession plans. After reviewing the Agency's corrective action, we consider this
recommendation complete. For Recommendation 8, we found that the corrective
actions provided are acceptable and consider this recommendation resolved with
corrective actions pending.
While disagreeing with Recommendations 9 and 10, the Agency provided a
template for senior leadership performance standards and OECA's Equity,
Diversity and Inclusion Program 2021 document as evidence that these
recommendations have been addressed.
The template for senior leadership performance standards does not include
specific metrics on NEIC work environment and culture. OECA's Equity,
Diversity and Inclusion Program 2021 document includes some relevant language
for addressing the intent of Recommendations 9 and 10. For example, the
document includes "maintain a high-performing workforce" and "encourage staff
retention" as part of OECA's goals. It also includes "conducting employee
surveys" and "responding to EVS issues" as examples of activities that support
OECA's goals. OCEFT and NEIC senior management can engage in
implementing the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion program and, at the same time,
work towards addressing Recom m en dat i on s 9 and 10 on NEIC work environment
and culture.
The corrective actions, as written, do not fulfill the intent of Recommendations 9
and 10 to develop and incorporate metrics on NEIC work environment and
21-P-0131
45
-------
culture into OCEFT and NEIC senior management performance standards. Thus,
these recommendations are considered unresolved with resolution efforts in
progress.
The Agency disagreed with our characterization that the work environment at
NEIC is a contributing factor to staff shortages. It said:
[T]he OIG fails to identify a single instance of such retaliation by
management. Any reprimands issued by management are done in
full accordance with Agency policy, and with the involvement of
the Labor and Employee Relations staff in the Office of Human
Resources and, as necessary, with the Office of General
Counsel . . . OCEFT management believes that there seems to be a
continuing misunderstanding by some members of the staff of the
difference between reprisals and reasonable management
expectations of accountability.
We stand by our conclusions regarding NEIC's work environment and the need for
Recommendations 9 and 10. These recommendations are supported by testimonial
evidence gathered from our interviews, which found that 14 of 26 (54 percent) of
current staff-level employees interviewed expressed an intent to leave NEIC due to
the work environment. Extrapolated across the entire NEIC workforce, this could
mean at least 25 percent of all current NEIC employees are intent on leaving
NEIC. These recommendations are also supported by the 2019 EVS scores and the
attrition rates at NEIC compared to the rest of the EPA. Additionally, a negative
work environment can exist in the absence of proven retaliation by management.
We believe that the bar for a positive work environment should be set higher than
the absence of retaliation. Allegations of retaliation identified during this audit
were referred to another OIG component office for review.
We included the Agency's full response to our draft report in Appendix C.
21-P-0131
46
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
12 Direct the National Enforcement Investigations Center to
develop and implement a formal procedure and tracking
mechanism (such as a consolidated spreadsheet) for
National Enforcement Investigations Center decisions
related to observations, comments, concerns, and
opportunities for improvement identified from audits;
management review action items that are not tracked
anywhere else; and customer complaints.
20 Direct the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and
Training to develop and implement a follow-up process
for inspection findings, including determining and
documenting whether corrective actions effectively
address findings.
33 Conduct a follow-up review of hazardous waste
management at the National Enforcement Investigations
Center to determine whether it is complying with relevant
statutes and regulations and verify internal controls are in
place to ensure future compliance.
34 Provide annual training on safety incident reporting
procedures to all National Enforcement Investigations
Center employees and managers, including training on
preventive or corrective actions and related root-cause
analysis.
34 Develop and incorporate metrics that address safety and
health issues and staff concerns into National
Enforcement Investigations Center senior management
performance standards, such as collecting anonymous
feedback from all staff annually.
34 In coordination with the assistant administrator for
Mission Support, verify that all laboratory hoods at the
National Enforcement Investigations Center are
operational and certified for use.
44 Develop and implement a staffing plan for the Office of
Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
incorporating projections of National Enforcement
Investigations Center workload based upon the number
of Criminal Investigation Division agents, the needs of
other EPA enforcement programs, and other factors.
45 In coordination with the assistant administrator for
Mission Support, develop a joint action plan for hiring
new staff at the National Enforcement Investigations
Center and promptly address delays in hiring.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
4/16/21
10/31/21
9/30/21
4/2/21
9/30/21
21-P-0131
47
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
10
45 Develop and incorporate metrics on the National
Enforcement Investigations Center work environment
and culture into Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics, and Training senior management
performance standards, such as results from the annual
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, periodic culture
audits, or other methods to measure progress.
45 Develop and incorporate metrics that address work
environment and culture into National Enforcement
Investigations Center senior management performance
standards.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
21-P-0131
48
-------
Appendix A
Internal Control Assessment
This table identifies which internal control components and underlying principles are significant to our
audit objective.
Which internal control components are
significant to the audit objective?
Which internal control principles are sianificant to the audit
objective?
X
Control Environment
The foundation for an internal control
system. It provides the discipline and
structure to help an entity achieve its
objectives.
1. The oversight body and management should demonstrate
a commitment to integrity and ethical values.
2. The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal
control system.
3. Management should establish an organizational structure,
assign responsibilities, and delegate authority to achieve
the entity's objectives.
X
4. Management should demonstrate a commitment to
recruit, develop, and retain competent individuals.
5. Management should evaluate performance and hold
individuals accountable for their internal control
responsibilities.
Risk Assessment
Management assesses the risks facing the
entity as it seeks to achieve its objectives.
This assessment provides the basis for
developing appropriate risk responses.
6. Management should define objectives clearly to enable
the identification of risks and define risk tolerances.
7. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to
risks related to achieving the defined objectives.
8. Management should consider the potential for fraud when
identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.
9. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to
significant changes that could impact the internal control
system.
X
Control Activities
The actions management establishes
through policies and procedures to achieve
objectives and respond to risks in the
internal control system, which includes the
entity's information system.
X
10. Management should design control activities to achieve
objectives and respond to risks.
X
11. Management should design the entity's information
system and related control activities to achieve objectives
and respond to risks.
X
12. Management should implement control activities through
policies.
Information and Communication
The quality information management and
personnel communicate and use to support
the internal control system.
13. Management should use quality information to achieve
the entity's objectives.
14. Management should internally communicate the
necessary quality information to achieve the entity's
objectives.
15. Management should externally communicate the
necessary quality information to achieve the entity's
objectives.
X
Monitoring
Activities management establishes and
operates to assess the quality of
performance overtime and promptly
resolve the findings of audits and other
reviews.
X
16. Management should establish and operate monitoring
activities to monitor the internal control system and
evaluate the results.
X
17. Management should remediate identified internal control
deficiencies on a timely basis.
Source: Based on internal control components and principles outlined in GAO-14-704G, Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government (also known as the "Green Book"), issued September 10, 2014.
21-P-0131
49
-------
Appendix B
NEIC's 2019 Federal EVS Results
NEIC
Other EPA Laboratories
All EPA
Question
All
Lab
Branch
Narraganset
Lab
Gulf Breeze
Lab
Duluth
Lab
Ann Arbor
Lab
I feel encouraged to come up with new
and better ways of doing things.
61%
of 49
38%
of 17
81%
of 36
59%
of 27
76%
of 38
74%
of 25
66%
of 8,821
I have sufficient resources (for example,
people, materials, budget) to get my job
done.
27%
of 49
11%
of 17
31%
of 36
23%
of 26
14%
of 37
42%
of 25
41%
of 8,260
I can disclose a suspected violation of
any law, rule, or regulation without fear
of reprisal
49%
of 48
36%
of 17
82%
of 34
58%
of 27
81%
of 37
66%
of 24
63%
of 7,732
Employees have a feeling of personal
empowerment with respect to work
processes.
20%
of 49
10%
of 17
58%
of 36
19% of 26
56%
of 37
65%
of 24
45%
of 8,006
Employees are protected from health
and safety hazards on the job.
54%
of 48
31%
of 17
100%
of 35
80%
of 35
94%
of 38
96%
of 25
83%
of 8,034
Prohibited Personnel Practices (for
example, illegally discriminating for or
against any employee/applicant) are not
tolerated.
45%
of 46
34%
of 16
94%
of 31
71%
of 25
90%
of 32
71%
of 20
70%
of 7,171
I recommend my organization as a
good place to work.
39%
of 49
15%
of 17
77%
of 35
57%
of 26
68%
of 38
75%
of 25
65%
of 8,191
In my organization, senior leaders
generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workforce.
16%
of 49
10%
of 17
28%
of 32
16%
of 25
46%
of 35
23%
of 24
34%
of 7,974
My organization's senior leaders
maintain high standards of honesty and
integrity.
26%
of 48
20%
of 17
51%
of 31
21%
of 24
52%
of 31
45%
of 21
43%
of 7,580
I have a high level of respect for my
organization's senior leaders.
29%
of 49
15%
of 17
39%
of 33
19%
of 26
57%
of 36
41%
of 24
44%
of 8,011
How satisfied are you with the policies
and practices of your senior leaders?
21%
of 49
15%
of 17
26%
of 34
15%
of 26
43%
of 38
36%
of 25
35%
of 8,049
Considering everything, how satisfied
are you with your organization?
36%
of 48
15%
of 17
50%
of 34
34%
of 26
50%
of 38
65%
of 25
56%
of 8,021
Overall, how good a job do you feel is
being done by the manager directly
above your immediate supervisor?
46%
of 49
27%
of 17
65%
of 34
72%
of 26
82%
of 38
52%
of 25
66%
of 7,725
Are you considering leaving within one
year?
53%
of 49
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20%
of 25
27%
of 8,352
Source: OIG summary of data from the Office of Personnel Management. (EPA OIG table)
Notes: Results include the percent of survey respondents that answered affirmatively to the question asked out of the total
respondents to the question. "N/A" means the results were not available for the EPA suborganization. The number of
respondents varies based on the question.
21-P-0131
50
-------
Appendix C
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
March 29, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General's Draft Report, Staffing Constraints, Safety
and Health Concerns at EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center May
Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission,
Project No. OA&E-FY2O-O099
I AWRFNPF Digitally signed by
. . ... L/v V V I \ 1— I t >_/ |_ | AUWOCMpc ^TARFIFI Pi
FROM: Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator ctarfifi n nae:2021.03.29
O I Ar\r I tLD 20:59:40 -04'00'
TO: Patrick Gilbride, Director
Environmental Research Programs Directorate
Office of Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Project No. OA&E-
FY20-0099, Staffing Constraints, Safety and Health Concerns at EPA 's National Enforcement
Investigations Center May Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission, dated February 25, 2021.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training (OCEFT) and its National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) understand
that the OIG's recommendations are aimed at ensuring that the NEIC's support of both civil and
criminal enforcement work is being conducted effectively and safely. However, OECA feels that many
of the conclusions being reached in the subject report are not supported by facts and/or disregard
information previously provided to the OIG. In addition, the overall report does not accurately reflect
both the historical and current challenges faced by NEIC, nor does it include the myriad of evidence
provided to OIG.
OECA's Concerns with the Audit Report
OECA's overarching concern is that the OIG has not provided an independent and unbiased review of
the information it received during the course of its audit. Specifically, the report does not incorporate
critical information provided to the OIG audit team by management, instead often relying on
unsubstantiated statements from staff as if they are statements of fact. In general, the standards that OIG
follows in conducting its audit work require auditors to support their findings with sufficient and
appropriate evidence; to evaluate evidence and determine whether it is reliable, including analyzing the
I \
w
PRO^
21-P-0131
51
-------
objectivity and credibility of testimonial evidence; and to exercise reasonable care and professional
skepticism in conducting their inquiry. (These standards are discussed in Attachment 2.) The draft report
and the process that produced it demonstrate that the audit team failed to meet these requirements.
OECA strongly disagrees with the characterization of the NEIC's abilities as described in the title of the
draft report, Staffing Constraints, Safety and Health Concerns at EPA 's National Enforcement
Investigations Center May Compromise Ability to Achieve Mission. At best, the report describes a purely
speculative assertion that challenges facing NEIC may (emphasis added) compromise its ability to
achieve its mission. The OIG seems to base many of its conclusions on employee assertions or
accusations which are not supported by facts, and nowhere does the report indicate specific instances
where NEIC was actually incapable of performing its essential mission in support of the Agency's
critical enforcement work as suggested by the report's title. NEIC has continued to successfully perform
its mission-critical work to perform complex investigations and support case work in criminal and civil
enforcement. NEIC completed 79 projects in FY 2018, 80 projects in FY 2019, and 71 projects in FY
2020 (despite the challenges of the coronavirus).
Further, to continue to achieve such strong results, OECA has taken steps over the past five years to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of NEIC's operations.
• Between FY 2018 and FY 2020, NEIC achieved a 43% reduction in days to complete a criminal
project (91.4 day average to 52.3 day average). During this time period, NEIC achieved a 93.6%
increase in criminal projects completed within 60 days.
• Between FY 2018 and FY 2020, NEIC achieved a 48% reduction in days to complete a civil
project (106.1 day average to 55.2 day average). During this time period, NEIC achieved a 126%
increase in civil projects completed within 60 days.
Although the audit team was provided with detailed information about improvements in the
management of NEIC operations, the report fails to reference or discuss these improvements, adding to
OECA's concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the report.
Unsubstantiated Allegations of Reprisals
The OIG report alleges that there is a retaliatory atmosphere at NEIC, yet the report provides no specific
examples of actual retaliation or reprisals occurring at NEIC. OCEFT Director Henry Barnet routinely
conducts exit interviews with departing employees, including those from NEIC. In each of these
discussions, departing employees - who would no longer be a part of the Agency and would therefore be
beyond the reach of any alleged reprisals - failed to provide any corroborating evidence of the alleged
atmosphere of reprisals at NEIC or OCEFT as a whole. While concerns were raised about their
unhappiness with changes at NEIC, which have focused on improved laboratory results and
programmatic accountability by everyone at NEIC, no one provided any actionable examples that
OCEFT/NEIC management could address.
Any allegation of a retaliatory atmosphere in OECA is of great concern to OECA management.
Accordingly, in an attempt to better understand the issues being raised by the OIG in their discussion
draft report provided to OECA in late 2020, OCEFT Director Barnet reached out to the audit team in
January 2021 to ask for examples, without asking for attribution to any particular employee, of
retaliation or a retaliatory atmosphere. Director Barnet was deeply concerned by the allegations, and to
establish a sufficient basis to address them immediately, he asked the audit team for specific facts or a
credible example. The OIG audit team declined to provide any examples citing privacy for the
employees. In an email to Director Barnet, the OIG stated:
21-P-0131
52
-------
You requested the OIG share specific examples of reprisal that were shared with the
OIG by OCEFT/NEIC employees during this audit without disclosing the name or
identifying information of the OCEFT employees involved. We reviewed the information
and records of interviews etc., and are unable to provide the information without also
raising concern on the disclosure of identifying information given the specifics. While
some staff stated that they experienced and/or witnessed reprisal from management, our
audit did not specifically include a review of reprisal, (emphasis added).1
OCEFT management agrees that some NEIC staff members have been displeased with some aspects of
management direction over the past several years. The management actions and direction taken at NEIC
were not intended as retaliation or to create the fear of retaliation. They were undertaken to address
operational concerns, personnel issues, and the need for greater accountability. There seems to be a
continuing misunderstanding by some members of the staff of the difference between reprisals and
reasonable management expectations of accountability. OCEFT provided examples demonstrating this
misunderstanding to OIG during the course of the audit (some of which are restated, below), but those
examples are not included in the draft report. OECA management strongly disagrees with assertions of
retaliation. In fact, as recently as February 25, 2021, a staff member at an all hands meeting at NEIC
acknowledged while discussing the 60-day goal2 that while no one has gotten in trouble for frequently
missing deadlines, but that just having a deadline in and of itself creates unwarranted pressure on staff.
We believe that the draft report in reaching its conclusion that a retaliatory atmosphere exists fails to
provide a full assessment of the information that the OIG was presented by both staff and management.
The report does not explain why the OIG failed to include the numerous facts and counterpoints
provided by OECA management, as well as relevant and critical information provided to the audit team
by the Agency's Labor and Employee Relations Division, as discussed in more detail below.
OCEFT management is aware that NEIC staff statements about "reprisals" or "retaliation" continue to
circulate and has tried to address them, although doing so is complicated by our inability to share details
of disciplinary actions that have occurred. However, to be clear, there have been no disciplinary actions
involving reporting health and safety issues or missing the 60-day goals. Not one staff member nor
anyone from the OIG provided a single example of actual retaliation. In the course of the audit, OCEFT
management provided the audit team with information relevant to these allegations. For example,
because the OIG alleges staff fear retaliation if they report a health and safety violation, OCEFT
management provided the OIG with all health and safety reports. OIG could have crosswalked all health
and safety violation reports with all records of disciplinary actions and see there is absolutely no
correlation. There is no indication that the OIG did such an analysis. Not a single employee has been
disciplined for missing any timeliness goal or measure, and our disciplinary record confirms that.
Nevertheless, the OIG's draft report includes numerous unsubstantiated staff statements but does not
include the statements and other information provided by management that counter these staff
statements. OECA is deeply concerned that the unbalanced and incomplete record presented in the draft
report gives credence to a false narrative, and if this deficiency is not addressed in the final report, the
1 Email response from Patrick Gilbride, Director, Environmental Research Programs Directorate, Office of Evaluation, dated
2/23/21, to OCEFT Director Henry Barnet regarding his 1/29/21 request for specific examples of retaliation or reprisals by
management against NEIC staff.
2 The 60-day goal refers to two internal NEIC performance goals. The first goal is to increase the percentage of criminal
projects completed within 60 days of the receipt of samples by NEIC, or completion of field work for projects where there is
no laboratory analysis, from 50% to 70% over FY 2021. The second goal is to ensure that 75% of civil inspection reports are
timely completed and sent to the Regional office within 60 days of inspection.
21-P-0131 53
-------
report will be harmful to NEIC's culture, morale, and ability to meet its mission.
Needed Changes to the NEIC Culture
Despite OCEFT management discussing it as a management priority, and, in our view, an important
aspect of the audit, the draft report gives little attention to the much-needed culture changes required at
NEIC. In the last several years, OECA/OCEFT management became aware of serious issues with the
culture at NEIC. Previous managers provided limited oversight and did not hold staff accountable and
staff, in general, exercised much more autonomy over their workload and deadlines. While NEIC was
able to maintain its scientific reputation and standards, there had been challenges, such as meeting goals
related to report timeliness and customer communications.
New management was brought into NEIC in 2017 with a focus on responding to these customer service
issues. New management built on the scientific successes of the past and focused on core management
responsibilities such as setting priorities, creating project timelines, holding staff accountable for grade
level appropriate performance, and addressing conduct issues. (See recent improved timeliness
information, above.)
NEIC provided the OIG with every recent conduct and performance action to demonstrate that
management was focusing on specific incidents of misconduct and poor performance. The OIG also
received comprehensive information on every action from EPA's Labor and Employee Relations
Division. None of this information was accounted for in the OIG report. Of course, management is not
able to openly discuss conduct and performance related matters with all staff and, therefore, staff
perceptions on what may actually be occuring cannot easily be corrected or clarified. Nevertheless,
despite having access to the full disciplinary record, the audit team included numerous staff statements
even though they were inconsistent with the facts in the disciplinary record. As such, we remain
concerned that the draft report presents an incomplete picture of what the OIG was provided, and as
such, the report is unbalanced. If the draft report is finalized without substantial changes, it would
undermine management's ability to continue with much-needed culture change and ability to achieve its
mission.
OCEFT and NEIC management have spent significant time listening to staff concerns and suggestions
and made changes where appropriate3. Some very good issues were raised, and management took steps
to address them, such as holding more routine all hands and branch meetings to ensure consistent
communication, promotion of inter-branch cooperation, and transparency of priorities through the
development of a Center-wide business plan (into which staff had direct input). However, we also
received some feedback, including requests and assertions that, coming from federal employees, were
simply astonishing. The following are some of the statements we have heard from multiple staff
members when OCEFT and NEIC management have sought to understand staff concerns. Given the
nature of the statements, management could not agree with or implement the following:
• A staff member said they believe personal relationships at work are more important than
accomplishing the mission.
• When asked for examples of where retaliation has occurred so that it can be addressed, a staff
member stated that weekly huddles as part of the EPA LEAN Management System are
retaliatory because staff should not have to provide information on the status of their project.
3 NEIC Director Canzler provided the OIG information on these Employee Viewpoint Survey listening sessions and provided
them via email to the audit team on August 24, 2020.
21-P-0131
54
-------
• A staff member said that it is retaliation to go to training (even though the training was required
to better support execution of their duties).
• A staff member stated that it is retaliation for first- and second-line managers to set priorities and
provide oversight of staff performance.
• A staff member stated that, because of years of service, more tenured employees do not need
supervision, and supervisory oversight is, therefore, retribution or reprisal.
• A staff member said they think having deadlines is a form of retaliation, although they
acknowledged that no one has gotten in trouble for frequently missing deadlines, simply having a
deadline in and of itself is pressure on staff.
• A staff member said it is unfair that current management has cut back all of the social
engagements and parties on official time that past management used to allow.
All of these examples of staff comments and perceptions (in addition to others) were provided to the
OIG in interviews with OCEFT and NEIC management. These comments do not represent the work
ethic and professionalism of every NEIC employee; however, they are indicative of the culture that
NEIC management seeks to change. We are disappointed that these statements, which we believe are
critical in weighing the credibility of staff statements about retaliation or a retaliatory atmosphere, are
omitted from the draft report. We believe that the omission of these statements, and other statements
made by management during the course of the audit, render the draft report unbalanced and support our
concern that the audit team was biased in conducting its analysis and drafting its report. Our concerns
are deepened by the fact that we presented all of these issues in our response to the discussion draft, but
the more recent draft report included no substantive changes or responses to what we provided. Our
concerns about bias are heightened by the denial to meet with the OIG prior to submitting this response
to discuss the comments we provided on the discussion draft and other documented indications of bias
of which we have become aware.
In Conclusion
OECA and OCEFT senior leadership have complete faith and confidence in the abilities and actions
taken by NEIC Director Erica Canzler, NEIC Deputy Director Francisco Cruz, and their management
team. It is almost impossible for any organization to address concerns if no specific facts or credible,
actionable allegations are identified. OECA is deeply troubled that, throughout the report,
unsubstantiated staff statements are used by the OIG, unfairly impugning the professionalism and
character of NEIC management.
Again, OECA appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft report. If you have further questions,
please contact Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA's Audit Follow Up Coordinator, at
spri ggs. gwendolyn@epa. gov.
Attachments
Attachment 1 to this response provides a more detailed list of concerns that OECA has with the subject
report, arranged by chapter as well as specifics on information provided to the OIG but not included in
the report.
Attachment 2 outlines OECA's concerns with the OIG's failure to follow government auditing
standards.
Attachment 3 is the listing of the report's recommendations and OECA's response to each.
21-P-0131
55
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - OECA's Concerns with the Subject Report by Chapter
Chapter 1: Introduction - Scope and Methodology
At pages 7-8, the draft report states:
We conducted our performance audit from February 2020 to February 2021. We conducted this
performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objective. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objective.
OECA has a number of concerns with the OIG's methodology; specifically, it is not clear that this report
investigated, considered, or included any information from other than a handful of people who are
displeased with efforts to institute baseline accountability. If that is so, then this limitation should be
clearly stated in the report.
On page 8, the report indicates the OIG interviewed 61 percent of all NEIC employees. However, given
that several key NEIC current and former staff members were not interviewed, including a former
Deputy Director who also served as Laboratory Branch Chief, we believe the OIG did not acquire all the
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for its findings, particularly given the magnitude and
import of the allegations in the draft report. We are also aware that information contrary to the findings
and allegations in the report was provided during interviews conducted by the audit team; however, that
information is not included in the draft report.
Further, on issues related to organizational climate or culture, many of the allegations being made are
unsubstantiated by facts yet are represented as factual conclusions.
The report at page 9 also states that:
(t)he OIG did not verify every staff concern identified during our interviews, though we present
some concerns that are supported by documentary or other evidence demonstrating that there is
a reasonable basis for the concern.
This statement is at the core of the concerns OECA raised in response to the discussion draft and
reiterates here in response to the draft report the subject audit. While the report states that the OIG
"verified" only a subset of the issues identified in the report, the report includes a number of
unsubstantiated concerns with no real ability for OECA to refute, or more importantly, address.
Chapter 2: NEIC Has Addressed Nonconformities from Quality Assurance Audits; Tracking of
Some Issues Should be Improved
The report states that NEIC has addressed nonconformities with accreditation requirements identified
from quality assurance (QA) audits, action items from management reviews, and eight identified
customer complaints between FY 2014 and FY 2019. Specifically, the draft report states at page 12:
21-P-0131
56
-------
NEIC is addressing high-priority issues, such as nonconformities identified in QA audits. We
found that NEIC should improve the tracking and documentation for secondary issues, such as
concerns, observations, comments, and opportunities for improvement from QA audits as well as
items from other sources, like customer complaints. Better tracking will improve NEIC's ability
to respond to repeat findings, identify trends, make more informed decisions on whether there
should be actions to address, andfacilitate knowledge transfer among NEIC staff and
management.
NEIC tracks issues from past audits. It should also be noted that NEIC consistently maintained full ISO
17025 accreditation and provided the audit team extensive documentation.
Further, the OIG report states at page 10:
NEIC's ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requires internal QA audits as well as external QA audits
from an accreditation body. We reviewed 25 internal and external QA audits conducted between
FY 14-19. These audits identified 38 nonconformities, which is the absence of or the failure to
implement and maintain an accreditation requirement. Examples of nonconformities include no
records of equipment calibration verification, lack of information in data packages to enable
tests to be repeated under original test conditions, and missing information from the project file.
We found all 38 nonconformities were addressed and documented as required by NEIC's QMS.
As the OIG notes, all 38 nonconformities were addressed and documented as required by the QMS and
in accordance with its ISO/IEC accreditation. OECA believes that this demonstrates the robustness of
the current tracking system; therefore, no additional resources need to be committed to this effort.
We also agree with the conclusion the OIG reaches in this chapter that "NEIC is addressing high priority
issues, such as nonconformities identified in QA audits."
Chapter 3: PIQA Did Not Follow Up on Inspection and Some Issues Remain Unresolved
The title of this chapter mischaracterizes the role of PIQA within OCEFT. PIQA's role is to gather facts
as part of an inspection or investigation. It then prepares a report for use by management in determining
actions in response to PIQA's findings. It is not the role of PIQA to specifically take action on
recommendations presented to management, including routinely self-initiating follow-up inquiries.
Rather, that is the responsibility of the OCEFT Office Director and the responsible management.
As the report indicates, between October 2014 and March 2020, PIQA conducted one inspection (in
2017) and two investigations (in 2017 and 2020) of NEIC. The investigations were requested by OCEFT
management.
In 2016, NEIC conducted a required self-inspection in advance of the PIQA inspection. Per the report,
OIG identified three concerns that merited follow-up from NEIC's 2016 self-inspection: (1) lack of
adequate staffing to meet Agency goals; (2) hiring system that has been "incredibly slow and is not
helpful in recruiting the technical expertise needed at NEIC;" (3) importing technical data from the field
due to difficulties with the Agency's firewall. The OIG draft report states that concerns (1) and (2)
remain issues. As NEIC explained, the issue is not so much the agency hiring process but rather the
challenge of budgetary constraints. NEIC is funded through the Agency's Science and Technology
appropriation, and under appropriations rules, other OECA and OCEFT resources are not readily
available to address NEIC needs. OCEFT and OECA press for appropriate resources, including staff,
21-P-0131
57
-------
during the annual budget process and will continue to do so. OCEFT has also worked to improve its
internal hiring processes, to shorten the length of time required to bring on new staff but would note that
many parts of the hiring process are outside of OCEFT and OECA's direct control. The report states that
concern (3) regarding technical difficulties with Agency's firewall appears to be largely resolved.
In response to the 2017 PIQA inspection report, NEIC developed an Actionable Items Report
responding to all eight PIQA recommendations. This report included corrective actions and an
implementation date with responsible parties identified. While NEIC implemented corrective actions to
address PIQA's observations, according to the OIG three of PIQA's observations persist, and the report
states that the corrective actions did not effectively address these three observations. These three
observations were:
1. There is a general lack of confidence and trust in the management team.
The report does not make clear that during the inspection that PIQA finalized in 2017, Director Canzler
had only recently been assigned as the new Acting Director and at the time of inspection, she was
reviewed favorably overall by NEIC staff. Further, in that inspection, staff indicated that inconsistency
among NEIC managers was a significant concern in 2016. Since 2016, the entire NEIC management
team except for one (a manager who is now in a different management position) has changed. Therefore,
the observations made by PIQA at that time about managers cannot be imputed to the current
management team.
The new NEIC management team has taken a number of actions to address the confidence/trust concern.
This includes, among other things, weekly meetings with new supervisors outside of routine
management meetings to support and mentor new supervisors as they come on board. In order to
provide leadership opportunities to staff, NEIC has provided multiple detail opportunities to enable staff
to serve in a temporary management positions. NEIC senior management has encouraged NEIC
managers to engage in the OECA mentoring program and to hold regular Branch and All Hands
meetings to ensure transparent communication.
2. Branches appear to have a significant amount of administrative duties without adequate support.
OECA acknowledges that like many parts of the Agency, overall numbers of administrative staff have
declined as resource constraints have become more pronounced and many administrative functions have
become more automated. While the statement is correct, the OIG report does not take into consideration
that while staff time devoted to projects may have decreased due to additional administrative duties, the
time to complete projects has significantly decreased as well. In addition, technology has advanced to
the point where many administrative functions can be done quite efficiently by staff themselves. This
includes not only NEIC staff but our criminal investigators, attorneys, managers, etc.
3. The waste disposal officer recently departed and another person was not identified to take over.
The draft report states on page 17 that NEIC management said that waste disposal officer duties were
transferred to three staff, that the health and safety officer at NEIC has taken a more active role in waste
management, and that procedures have been updated based on the transfer of duties. The OIG
concluded, again at page 17, that the "[distribution of waste control officer duties, that is, multiple
people involved with no clear lead, and workload constraints due to staff attrition were contributing
factors to the hazardous waste violations identified during the 2020 inspection" which resulted in a fine
from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).
21-P-0131
58
-------
This conclusion is wrong and disregards the information provided to OIG. While there was a short
period of time where waste control officer duties were shared among three staff, that had no bearing on
the CDPHE audit or its finding. At least two years prior to the CDPHE audit, the waste control officer
position was assigned to one experienced and trained employee atNEIC. In addition, this employee's
supervisor was provided additional RCRA training to ensure he could provide proper oversight. The
negligent performance of duties that led to the CDHPE fine was immediately addressed and corrected by
management.
Chapter 4: Safety and Health Issues Persist, Though Steps Have Been Taken to Address Them
OECA and NEIC management acknowledge that some required Safety and Health Management System
audits were not performed annually prior to 2017. The audits did not occur and we do not know why
because all managers and employees with those responsibilities have left NEIC and no documentation
from that time period exists to explain why. In the period of construction on the lab facility during the
co-location merger with EPA Region 8's lab, some of these audits were temporarily suspended as it was
impracticable to conduct audits due to the scope and scale of the construction. OECA is committed to
ensuring that all required audits are done in a timely manner. All required internal audits and
management reviews were completed in 2020, and we anticipate the same to be the case for 2021.
However, the report cites employee statements that management cared little for the safety of our
employees and that the employees themselves were not able to raise health and safety issues, as the OIG
highlights with staff comments on page 24. These statements are simply not true, and the OIG provides
no information to substantiate them. Management provided examples in their interviews with the OIG
that demonstrate they take safety very seriously. Furthermore, management has consistently led monthly
walk-throughs in the laboratory to ensure a safe and healthy work environment. As with other parts of
the draft report, there is no indication that these examples were taken into consideration in formulating
the draft reports findings and recommendations. Secondly, if employees have concerns about health and
safety, there are many ways for them to raise them, including reporting claims to the NEIC RCRA
media lead; NEIC management at any level; their Union representatives; the OECA, OCEFT, or NEIC
online comment boxes, which include an option for anonymity; or OSHA. We are not aware that any of
these avenues were ever pursued to raise health and safety concerns.
Regarding staff allegations that safety is not a priority of NEIC management and that staff fear reprisals
for reporting safety issues, OECA remains deeply concerned that such statements are included in the
draft report without proper context or corroborating evidence of their veracity. Once again, the report
does not include a single piece of evidence of reprisals for reporting safety incidents to management,
and NEIC management has not taken any disciplinary actions against any employee for reporting a
safety incident. NEIC management provided specific facts to the audit team that counter these
assertions, including that health and safety incident reports that were filed by staff without any reprisal.
In addition, management routinely reminds staff at Branch and All Hands meetings of the importance of
following all health and safety procedures.
Management has taken actions for employee misconduct resulting in critical health and safety violations.
But to be clear, those were not in response to reyortins the incident but for failure to follow procedures
or other conduct issues which caused the incident.
As management is not allowed to discuss conduct or discipline matters with other employees, the staff
statements are being made without management being able to provide full context. As such, their
21-P-0131
59
-------
inclusion in the draft report is harmful to NEIC's ability to effectively manage its employees. OECA and
NEIC management only take disciplinary actions for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and
management works closely with its Labor and Employee Relations advisors and, as appropriate, Office
of General Counsel attorneys, on each matter.
The report also states at page 24-25 that:
Furthermore, safety and health and waste management are now incorporated into the annual
performance reviews for applicable staff and, according to the director, continue to be
management priorities.
In fact, applicable employee PARS already included this information (as opposed to the OIG's
insinuation that it was a late reaction by NEIC management) as it was and continues to be a priority of
management. Such documents were provided to the OIG.
As the OIG has noted, NEIC has had administrative challenges with its health and safety program.
However, the lack of sufficient resources and staff misconduct are the root of those issues, not a
disregard for health and safety on the part of management. OECA has provided a great deal of evidence
indicating management puts a very high priority on health and safety issues, and just as importantly took
no action against any employee merely for reporting their concerns.6
Many staff statements involve the issue of nonfunctioning vent hoods as a health and safety concern. As
NEIC management has stated, no employees were ever put in a position to use a nonfunctioning vent
hood. In fact, employees were repeatedly directed not to conduct laboratory work using the
nonfunctioning vent hoods. The fact that employees were inconvenienced by having to use a reduced
number of hoods is not a health and safety issue. We believe this is yet another example of the
incomplete presentation of an issue and bias on the part of the audit team.
Chapter 5: NEIC Faces Severe Staffing Shortage Due to Work Environment, Attrition, Difficulty
Hiring
The draft report reflects the issues with staffing shortages impacting NEIC. As stated in the report at
page 33:
Since FY 2014, NEIC has lost 27 full-time employees representing a net reduction of 32 percent
from 2014 levels... In comparison, the EPA 's workforce declined by 8percent over this same
period.
NEIC's budget is largely comprised of the S&T appropriation. This is a very small portion of the
Agency's overall budget, and most every dollar of S&T received by OECA goes towards NEIC. The
issue is that the limited amount of S&T funding provided to OECA, and OECA's traditional high FTE
costs, means that any reductions from the Agency in S&T have a disproportionate impact on our FTE as
there are very few extramural dollars from which OECA can absorb such reductions. OECA has been
working with the Agency to try to obtain more S&T resources to address these reductions over the last
seven years, however, OECA cannot substitute other types of funding to address the shortfalls.
6 This information was provided to the OIG by NEIC management on SharePoint on March 25, 2020, and May 20, 2020.
21-P-0131 60
-------
While it is true that NEIC has endured a large number of staff separations, OECA disagrees with the
characterization in this part of the report that such departures are a direct result of the "work
environment" at NEIC. Specifically, the report says at page 38:
Both current andformer employees expressedfear of retaliation, the use of reprimands by senior
management, a lack of trust in senior management, and low staff morale as reasons for leaving.
As mentioned repeatedly in this response, the OIG fails to identify a single instance of such retaliation
by management. Any reprimands issued by management are done in full accordance with Agency
policy, and with the involvement of the Labor and Employee Relations staff in the Office of Human
Resources and, as necessary, with the Office of General Counsel. As discussed earlier in this response,
OCEFT management believes that there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding by some members
of the staff of the difference between reprisals and reasonable management expectations of
accountability.
The overall discussion in the report regarding resource needs fails to acknowledge the extensive
workload analysis which has been completed by NEIC management. NEIC management provided the
OIG a business case that demonstrates its identified needs based on data as well as several branch
succession plans. There are numerous additional data points, such as the annual civil project solicitation
plans7, that demonstrate the number of requests by the Regions and HQs versus what NEIC is able to
staff. Based on the draft report, it appears that the OIG did not consider the data provided.
The report reaches sweeping conclusions based on relatively few interviews with staff. For example, the
report states at page 37:
Of the current staff-level employees we interviewed, 15 of26 (58 percent) shared their intent to
leave NEIC as soon as possible, that is, by actively looking for work elsewhere or taking early
retirement. Of these employees, 14 of 15 (93 percent) indicated the work environment as their
reason for intending to leave.
While not calling into question that this is what these staff said to the OIG, the numbers presented create
a misleading impression of the magnitude of dissatisfaction at NEIC. Additionally, anecdotal
information from various members of NEIC suggests that the range of content covered in interviews
varied greatly, further calling into question the validity of conclusions drawn in the draft report.
OECA recognizes that the issue of having a timeliness measure, whether for completing criminal
projects or civil inspection reports, has created concerns by staff at NEIC. The report does not clarify
that the 60-day goal was established as part of an Agency-wide continuous improvement effort and has
been viewed very positively by NEIC's customers, so much so that, for the first time in 10 years, the
OCEFT Criminal Investigation Division has reported that it is satisfied with the support they receive
from NEIC (a key customer not interviewed by OIG).
Staff believe that the 60-day goal puts undue pressure to quickly complete, oftentimes, complex
projects. However, OECA, OCEFT and NEIC senior management have all stated the 60-day is a goal
and the integrity of the work remains of paramount importance. NEIC management has always
granted flexibility on timeliness. NEIC management has stated that the 60-day goal helped to more
promptly address environmental harm and respond to customer complaints. Before this goal was put in
7 These documents were emailed by the branch chiefs to the audit team on September 3 and 4, 2020.
21-P-0131
61
-------
place, such reports were taking an unreasonable 254 days8 on average to complete. Efficiency and
customer satisfaction have both increased as a result of implementing the 60-day goal.
As to the allegation included in the draft report that staff face "reprisals" for not meeting the 60-day
goal, we reiterate that not a single employee has been disciplined for missing the goal for civil reports or
criminal projects, and our disciplinary record confirms that. Numerous managers provided information
showing that the majority of NEIC criminal reports have, in fact, missed the 60-day goal and not a single
staff member has been reprimanded. Yet this information, which presents a more accurate, balanced
view, is not included in the report.
The OIG report does not take into consideration the efforts management is undertaking to change the
culture of NEIC to one of high performance and greater accountability. There may be staff who will
choose not to accept this new paradigm, and we recognize that NEIC management will have little ability
to address their concerns. By way of example of the staff expectations that management is attempting to
address, on more than one occasion, some NEIC staff have suggested that NEIC hold "Movie
Thursdays" where staff would gather to watch a movie during normal duty hours and while on duty
status. This is an inappropriate request for federal workers to make and one which NEIC management
denied. NEIC staff have also asked for more social events while on government time. The new NEIC
management has, consistent with practices of many offices across EPA, rightly focused these types of
events to a holiday party at the end of the year and a summer picnic. Rejecting staff requests for
additional "party times" is well within management's discretion. These are examples of the
organizational climate and culture that NEIC management is trying to address, and unfortunately some
staff will not be happy with the results, even where they are an appropriate response to the operational
needs of the organization. During one listening session with NEIC management and the OCEFT Deputy
Director to discuss EVS results, one NEIC employee stated publicly words to the effect that they "would
prioritize personal workplace relationships over completion of the mission of NEIC." While OECA
management values interpersonal relationships among staff, it cannot come at the expense of the
mission.
8 The 254-day timeframe was developed during a Kaizen event in which staff mapped the timeframe of their workflow and
identified opportunities to reduce it.
21-P-0131
62
-------
Attachment 2: OECA's Concerns About How the Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards Were Not Followed
In comments provided to OIG on the initial discussion draft of the subject report, OECA stated that this
report does not fully provide factually accurate information in accordance with the standards for
conducting audits as established by the Comptroller General of the United States, and as outlined in the
April 2, 2020, memorandum from Kathlene Butler, Acting Assistant Inspector General Office of Audit
and Evaluation, Office of Inspector General Audit and Evaluation Processes. These standards are based
on the Government Auditing Standards, which are also referred to as the generally accepted government
auditing standards, known as GAGAS, or the "Yellow Book." Further, the OIG also stated that it
follows the standards for evaluations as established by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency and are referred to as the "Blue Book." OECA strongly feels that this audit did not
adequately follow the "Yellow Book" and "Blue Book" standards and guidance. Specifically, the GAO
Audit Manual provides, at page 179:
8.90 Auditors must obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis
for addressing the audit objectives and supporting their findings and conclusions.
8.91 In assessing the appropriateness of evidence, auditors should assess whether the
evidence is relevant, valid, and reliable.
8.92 In determining the sufficiency of evidence, auditors should determine whether
enough appropriate evidence exists to address the audit objectives and support the findings and
conclusions to the extent that would persuade a knowledgeable person that the findings are
reasonable.
8.93 When auditors use information provided by officials of the audited entity as part of
their evidence, they should determine what the officials of the audited entity or other auditors did
to obtain assurance over the reliability of the information.
8.94 Auditors should evaluate the objectivity, credibility, and reliability of testimonial
evidence.
The following are additional elements from the "Yellow Book" which OECA does not feel were
followed in the course of this audit based on our review of the draft report:
"3.19 Auditors and audit organizations should avoid situations that could lead reasonable
and informed third parties to conclude that the auditors and audit organizations are not
independent and thus are not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues
associated with conducting the engagement and reporting on the work."
OECA believes that the current draft report could be deemed as not being independent by a reasonable
and informed third party given the number of unsubstantiated claims in the document, and the number of
management statements and other information provided to the audit team during the course of the audit
that are not included in the draft report.
"3.110 Professional judgment includes exercising reasonable care and professional
skepticism. Reasonable care includes acting diligently in accordance with applicable professional
standards and ethical principles. Attributes of professional skepticism include a questioning
mind, awareness of conditions that may indicate possible misstatement owing to error or fraud,
and a critical assessment of evidence. Professional skepticism includes being alert to, for
example, evidence that contradicts other evidence obtained or information that brings into
question the reliability of documents or responses to inquiries to be used as evidence. Further, it
includes a mindset in which auditors assume that management is neither dishonest nor of
21-P-0131
63
-------
unquestioned honesty. Auditors may accept records and documents as genuine unless they have
reason to believe the contrary. Auditors may consider documenting procedures undertaken to
support their application of professional skepticism in highly judgmental or subjective areas
under audit."
Again, OECA believes that the auditors do not appear to exercise sufficient professional skepticism of
staff statements given the availability of evidence that contradicts those statements.
"9.17 The auditor may use the report quality elements of accurate, objective, complete,
convincing, clear, concise, and timely when developing and writing the audit report as the
subject permits.
¦ a. Accurate: An accurate report is supported by sufficient, appropriate evidence with
key facts, figures, and findings being traceable to the audit evidence. Reports that are
fact-based, with a clear statement of sources, methods, and assumptions so that report
users can judge how much weight to give the evidence reported, assist in achieving
accuracy. Disclosing data limitations and other disclosures also contribute to
producing more accurate audit reports. Reports also are more accurate when the
findings are presented in the broader context of the issue. One way to help the audit
organization prepare accurate audit reports is to use a quality control process such as
referencing. Referencing is a process in which an experienced auditor who is
independent of the audit checks that statements of facts, figures, and dates are
correctly reported; the findings are adequately supported by the evidence in the audit
documentation; and the conclusions and recommendations flow logically from the
evidence."
OECA is concerned that the audit team does not disclose data limitations and other disclosures,
including not interviewing several current and former staff members that were identified during
interviews, and not reviewing pertinent personnel files that would refute many of the unsubstantiated
claims in the report. In addition, when presented with contrary or countervailing evidence, the OIG
neglected to include it in the report.
"9.18 In the audit report, auditors should present sufficient, appropriate evidence to
support the findings and conclusions in relation to the audit objectives. Auditors should provide
recommendations for corrective action if findings are significant within the context of the audit
objectives."
OECA believes the audit team fails to meet this requirement as they do not present enough appropriate
evidence to support their findings and the resulting recommendations, given the quantity of
unsubstantiated claims relied upon in the document.
OECA strongly believes that employee comments are treated as fact without any evidentiary support to
include them in the audit as factual statements. NEIC and other management officials (including Labor
and Employee Relations Division management), provided a myriad of facts and documents in response to
these unsubstantiated allegations, yet the audit does not include these responses to counter the
anonymous allegations. This is contrary to the "Yellow Book" standards and the evidence-based
standards detailed above. This further complicates OECA's ability to respond to the findings and
recommendations, as the report is not providing sufficient information to aid in the resolution of the
issues contained in the report; these comments amount to allegations or accusations without supporting
facts.
21-P-0131
64
-------
ATTACHMENT3- OECA RESPONSES TO Si
PECIFIC
OIG RECOMMENDATIONS
UEC.
NO.
PACK
#
ok; recommendation
SI A 1 is
9
oeca response
PLANNED
COMPLETION
DATE
1
12
Direct the National Enforcement
Investigations Center to develop and
implement a formal procedure and
tracking mechanism (such as a
consolidated spreadsheet) for
National Enforcement Investigations
Center decisions related to
observations, comments, concerns,
and opportunities for improvement
identified from audits; management
review action items that are not
tracked anywhere else; and
customer complaints.
c
OECA disagrees with the recommendation to
develop a tracking mechanism, as NEIC is
already properly tracking the identified
issues. As the report itself states, with regard to
the eight customer complaints NEIC received
from FY 2014 to FY 2019, NEIC adequately
addressed all eight. Likewise, in regard to the 25
internal and external QA audits conducted
between FY 2014 to FY 2019 and specifically
the 38 nonconformities found therein, the IG
found all 38 nonconformities were addressed and
documented as required by NEIC's quality
management system. Therefore, the above-cited
evidence illustrates that NEIC is properly
tracking and managing these concerns and the
report failed to present any evidence to the
contrary. In addition, this proposed tracking
mechanism is not required by NEIC's ISO 17025
accreditation.
Ongoing as
NEIC will
continue to
utilize its
existing tracking
system.
2
20
Direct the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and
Training's Professional Integrity
and Quality Assurance unit to
develop and implement a follow-up
process for inspection findings,
c
OECA agrees that follow-up on inspection
findings is important. OCEFT Director works
with the responsible management to follow up
on the effectiveness of corrective actions as
necessary. PIQA has updated its inspection
Completed
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
21-P-0131
65
-------
including determining and
documenting whether corrective
actions effectively address findings.
manual to follow up on high-priority action
items to ensure items are completed.
3
32
Conduct a follow-up review of
hazardous waste management at the
National Enforcement Investigations
Center to determine if it is
complying with relevant statutes and
regulations and verify internal
controls are in place to ensure future
compliance.
C
OECA agrees with this recommendation and
has already implemented it. NEIC has put
internal controls in place and is conducting
quarterly inspections to ensure compliance with
relevant statutes and regulations. This
information was provided to the OIG.
Completed
4
32
Provide annual training on safety
incident reporting procedures to all
National Enforcement Investigations
Center employees and managers,
including training on preventive or
corrective actions and related root-
cause analysis.
C
OECA agrees. Health and Safety training is
essential, and NEIC completes this training
annually. NEIC will consider how best to cover
preventive or corrective actions and related root-
cause analysis.
10/31/21
5
32
Develop and incorporate metrics
that address safety and health issues
and staff concerns into National
Enforcement Investigations Center
senior management performance
evaluations, such as collecting
anonymous feedback from all staff
annually.
c
OECA agrees. Health and Safety is a core
consideration at NEIC. We will review senior
manager performance standards to ensure that
their commitment to maintain a dedicated Health
and Safety FTE and complete annual audits
continues.
10/31/21
6
32
In coordination with the assistant
administrator of Mission Support,
verify that all laboratory hoods at
the National Enforcement
Investigations Center are
operational and certified for use.
R
OECA agrees and is currently working with
OMS and GSA on this issue. To date 21 of the
25 ventilation hoods within NEIC are certified
and operational. OMS hired a third-party
commissioning agent (Facility Dynamics
Engineering) and chemical fume hood expert
(Hoy Engineering) to review laboratory
9/30/21
21-P-0131
66
-------
ventilation and fume hood operation for all
NEIC and R8 laboratories in building 25. The
commissioning agent and fume hood expert
worked onsite from November 2020 through
January 2021 to set up the laboratory HVAC and
fume hood air flows per the recent building
renovations design intent. Once the systems were
confirmed to be operating correctly, ASHRAE
110 fume hood certification was performed by
third party (TSS & 3Flow) for all fume hoods.
All fume hoods passed the ASHRAE 110
certification with the exception of four
polypropylene fume hoods and two biosafety
cabinets requiring additional mechanical duct
work repairs. In order to certify the remining
fume hoods and biosafety cabinets GSA is
working with the contractor to perform the
repairs. OMS anticipates remaining ASHRAE
110 certifications to complete by end of April
2021. OMS has the commissioning report and
fume hood certification reports that can be made
available upon request.
7
42
Develop and implement a staffing
plan for the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and
Training incorporating projections
of National Enforcement
Investigations Center workload
based upon the number of Criminal
Investigation Division agents, the
needs of other EPA enforcement
programs, and other factors.
C
OECA agrees and has developed a staffing
plan. Our staffing plan includes a workload
analysis and succession plans. In addition,
OECA performs position management based
upon current onboards as well as projections for
staffing.
Completed
21-P-0131
67
-------
8
42
In coordination with the assistant
administrator for Mission Support,
develop a joint action plan for hiring
new staff at the National
Enforcement Investigations Center
and promptly address delays in
hiring.
C
OECA agrees. OECA has begun work with
OMS and the Cincinnati Shared Service Center
(SSC) to address the delays in hiring. The SSC is
evaluating work processes and resource
allocation in order to keep actions moving.
Helpful strides in efficiency have already been
made in this respect.
9/30/21
9
42
Develop and incorporate metrics on
the National Enforcement
Investigations Center work
environment and culture into Office
of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics,
and Training senior management
performance standards, such as
results from the annual Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey,
periodic culture audits, or other
methods to measure progress.
C
OECA disagrees. The OCEFT Director and
Deputy Director already committed to
implement OECA's Equity, Diversity and
Inclusion program, which includes a long list of
efforts to make the workplace as welcoming as
possible for all. Specifically, the senior managers
committed to further strengthening OECA as an
organization that appreciates and respects
everyone, offers a welcoming work environment
for all, shows no tolerance for racism, values
equity and takes meaningful steps towards
creating and maintaining a more diverse
workforce. The program contains a system for
measuring our success. OCEFT will continue to
address the culture change at NEIC and will
continue to solicit feedback and address concerns
as appropriate.
10
42
Develop and incorporate metrics
that address work environment and
culture into National Enforcement
Investigations Center senior
management performance standards.
c
OECA disagrees. The NEIC Director and
Deputy Director already committed to
implement the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
program, which includes a long list of efforts to
make the workplace as welcoming as possible
for all. Specifically, the senior managers
committed to further strengthening OECA as an
organization that appreciates and respects
everyone, offers a welcoming work environment
21-P-0131
68
-------
21-P-0131
for all, shows no tolerance for racism, values
equity and takes meaningful steps towards
creating and maintaining a more diverse
workforce The program contains a system for
measuring our success. NEIC management will
continue to address the culture change at NEIC
and will continue to solicit feedback and address
concerns as appropriate.
-------
Appendix D
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mission Support
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Mission Support
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
21-P-0131
70
------- |