EPA Employees Did Not Act 

Consistently With Agency 

Policy in Assisting an EPA 

Grantee 

Report No. 14-P-0247 May 9, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.
Report Contributors: Eric Lewis 

Dwayne Crawford

 Alisha Chugh 

 Christine Baughman 

 Nyquana Manning 

Abbreviations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

NCER National Center for Environmental Research 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

OW Office of Water 

Cover photo: A sign containing a fish-consumption advisory. (EPA photo) 

Hotline Suggestions for Audits or 

Evaluations

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact 

us through one of the following methods:

To make suggestions for audits or evaluations, 

contact us through one of the following methods:

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

1-888-546-8740

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2431T

Washington, DC 20460

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov

1-202-566-2391

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/contact.html#Full_Info

EPA Inspector General 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2410T

Washington, DC 20460

This is one of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General’s 

products associated with issues related to scientific integrity within the agency. For details on 

our other reports on issues related to scientific integrity, go to 

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110722-11-P-0386.pdf, and 

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/20130828-13-P-0364.pdf.
14-P-0247

May 9, 2014

Why We Did This Review

The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA),

Office of Inspector General,

received a hotline complaint 

alleging that an Office of Water 

(OW) employee interfered with

a grant funded by the EPA’s

Office of Research and 

Development (ORD). ORD 

awarded the grant in April 

2011. We reviewed complaint 

allegations that the OW 

employee: (1) asked the 

ORD to terminate the grant; 

(2) directed an EPA contractor 

not to publish data on mercury 

and selenium levels in fish; and 

(3) did not cooperate with the 

EPA grantee’s request for 

mercury and selenium data.

The requested data were 

measurements of mercury and 

selenium in freshwater fish

from locations within states that 

had fish-consumption 

advisories due to mercury 

contamination. We generally 

referred to this data as “fish

contamination data.” OW 

acquired the data through an 

EPA contract in 2008.

This report addresses the 

following EPA theme:

 

 Protecting water: A 

precious, limited resource.

For further information, 

contact our public affairs office 

at (202) 566-2391.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ 

20140509-14-P-0247.pdf

EPA Employees Did Not Act Consistently With 

Agency Policy in Assisting an EPA Grantee 

 What We Found

Our findings did not substantiate a hotline complaint 

alleging that an OW employee asked the ORD to 

terminate an EPA grant, or that the OW employee 

directed an EPA contractor not to publish its fishcontamination data. However, we found that the OW 

employee and an immediate supervisor did not respond 

in a timely manner to the EPA grantee’s requests for fish-contamination data the 

OW obtained from an EPA contractor in 2008. In addition, our work shows that the 

OW employee expressed concern to a senior OW staff member regarding ORD 

funding the grant. From September 2011 to May 22, 2012, the EPA grantee made 

eight requests seeking the fish-contamination data from the OW. However, the 

EPA grantee was not able to obtain the data until May 31, 2012, after the OW 

posted it on a public EPA website. During this period, both the OW employee and 

his immediate supervisor did not respond to the EPA grantee’s requests because 

the OW was still trying to figure out what to do with the data. However, the OW did 

not disclose or explain the reasons for not responding. Unresponsiveness to the 

EPA grantee/public requests is inconsistent with the agency’s Scientific Integrity 

Policy. The OW employee claimed a lack of awareness of the requirements in the 

policy.

We also found that the ORD project officers, despite their awareness of the 

problem, provided limited assistance to the EPA grantee in obtaining the requested 

data. We believe these actions to be inconsistent with the EPA’s Assistance 

Administration Manual. Consequently, these EPA employees withheld for 8 months 

data that could have contributed to the scientific understanding of mercury and 

selenium interactions in fish. In addition, the 4-year delay in making the 2008 data 

available to the general public prevented certain states from having the opportunity 

to determine whether they needed to revise their advisories on fish the public could 

safely eat. 

 Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that (1) the agency’s Scientific Integrity Official develop standard 

operating procedures that detail how staff are to comply with the EPA’s Scientific 

Integrity Policy requirement to provide timely responses to requests for information 

by the media, the public and the scientific community; and (2) the Assistant 

Administrator for Research and Development develop standard operating 

procedures to ensure that ORD staff that serve as project officers on grants are 

adhering to their responsibilities under the EPA’s Assistance Administration 

Manual. In response to our draft report, agency action officials provided acceptable 

corrective actions or plans and both the recommendations are resolved. No final 

response to this report is required.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Fish contamination 

data was withheld 

that could have been 

useful to the 

scientific community 

and the public. 
May 9, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Employees Did Not Act Consistently With Agency Policy in 

Assisting an EPA Grantee

Report No. 14-P-0247

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO: Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of Research and Development

Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of Water

Francesca Grifo, Scientific Integrity Official

Office of Research and Development

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The offices responsible for implementing the audit recommendations included in this report are the 

Office of Water’s Office of Science and Technology and the Standards and Health Protection Division; 

and, the Office of Research and Development’s Office of the Science Advisor and National Center for 

Environmental Research.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your offices provided acceptable and complete corrective actions 

or planned corrective actions in response to OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved 

and no final response to this report is required. We will post this report to our website at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General for Program 

Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Eric Lewis, Director, Special Program

Reviews, at (202) 566-2664 or lewis.eric@epa.gov. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Employees Did Not Act Consistently With 14-P-0247 

Agency Policy in Assisting an EPA Grantee

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

Purpose .................................................................................................... 1

Background................................................................................................ 1

Responsible Offices ................................................................................... 4

Scope and Methodology ........................................................................... 4

2 OW Staff Did Not Respond to Data Requests in a Timely Manner................ 6

Two Hotline Allegations Not Substantiated ................................................ 6

OW Acquired Fish-Contamination Data in 2008......................................... 7

OW Staff Did Not Respond Timely and Provide Data to the Grantee ......... 7

Reasons for Not Responding to the Grantee’s Data Requests................... 9

ORD Provided Limited Assistance to Help the Grantee Obtain Data.......... 9

OW Delayed Public Access to Scientific Data and Reports........................ 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................ 12

Recommendations..................................................................................... 12

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation.............................. 13

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 14

Appendices

A OW Response to Draft Report ......................................................................... 15

B ORD Response to Draft Report ....................................................................... 24

C Distribution ....................................................................................................... 26
14-P-0247 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General

(OIG), received a hotline complaint alleging that an Office of Water (OW) 

employee interfered with a grant (assistance agreement) funded by the EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development (ORD). We reviewed complaint allegations 

that the OW employee:

1. Asked the ORD to terminate the grant.

2. Directed an EPA contractor not to publish fish-contamination data.

3. Did not cooperate with the EPA grantee’s request for fish-contamination 

data.

Background 

EPA Grant Funded by ORD

The EPA grant referenced in the hotline complaint was funded by the ORD’s 

National Center for Environmental Research’s (NCER’s) Science to Achieve 

Results grant program. The goal of the grant was to examine all existing data on 

relationships between mercury and selenium in fish from across the United States,

and to use this information to develop a more accurate index for determining 

which fish are safe and beneficial to eat. According to the EPA grantee, the 

proposed benefit of selenium is that it offsets mercury toxicity. The grant intended

to combine existing data sets to determine selenium-health-benefit value for 

different types of fish that people often consume. The selenium-health-benefit

value was developed in prior research as an indicator to determine fishconsumption risk. The grant had three main tasks:

1. Obtain available data sets that report mercury and selenium levels in

 ocean fish in order to define their selenium-health-benefit value. 

2. Obtain available mercury and selenium data generated by government and

 nongovernment organizations in order to establish selenium-health-

 benefit values for freshwater fish across the United States. 

3. Enhance an existing model to describe biological responses from mercury

and selenium interactions in tissue observed in animal and human studies.
14-P-0247 2

The NCER was responsible for monitoring the EPA grant through a project 

officer. According to NCER guidance, the project officer ensures that:

 The grantee complies with programmatic terms and conditions of the grant 

agreement.

 The project is carried out as originally outlined in the grantee’s workplan 

or proposal.

 Federal assistance funds are used appropriately. 

The project officer provides these assurances through baseline monitoring, which 

includes accepting progress reports (e.g., annual, semiannual or quarterly) and

ensuring that quality-assurance requirements are met.

Scientific Integrity Guidelines

The EPA has spent over a decade developing and issuing policies and 

procedures on scientific integrity. In 2000, the EPA’s National Partnership 

Council developed the Principles of Scientific Integrity as a policy statement 

that establishes a set of professional principles for EPA scientists. A former 

EPA Administrator promulgated the Principles of Scientific Integrity on 

March 28, 2000. An excerpt from the policy statement says: 

It is essential that EPA’s scientific and technical activities be 

of the highest quality and credibility if EPA is to carry out 

its responsibilities to protect human health and the 

environment. Honesty and integrity in its activities and 

decision-making processes are vital if the American public is 

to have trust and confidence in EPA’s decisions. 

The Principles of Scientific Integrity requires EPA employees to: 

 Ensure that their work is of the highest integrity.

 Represent their work fairly and accurately.

 Represent and acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others.

 Avoid financial conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.

 Be cognizant of and understand specific programmatic statutes.

 Accept the affirmative responsibility to report any breach.

 Welcome differing views and opinions on scientific and technical matters.

On March 9, 2009, the President issued a memorandum to the heads of all 

executive departments and agencies to take action to guarantee scientific integrity 

throughout the executive branch. The President’s memorandum specifically

stated:

If scientific and technological information is developed and used 

by the federal government, it should ordinarily be made available 
14-P-0247 3

to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be 

transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific 

and technological information in policymaking. 

Following the President’s memorandum, the former EPA Administrator issued a 

memorandum in May 2009 notifying all agency employees about the President’s 

memorandum and the important guidepost it provides for how the EPA should 

conduct and use science. Following these two memorandums, the EPA enacted its

Scientific Integrity Policy in February 2012. The policy covers scientific research 

performed by contractors, grantees or other agency partners who assist with 

developing or applying the results of scientific activities. According to the EPA’s 

Scientific Integrity Policy, the agency’s scientist and managers are expected to:

Represent agency scientific activities clearly, accurately, honestly, 

objectively, thoroughly, without political or other interference, and 

in a timely manner, consistent with their official responsibilities. 

While a scientist’s primary responsibility is to pursue their 

scientific activities, it is also a scientist and his/her manager’s 

responsibility to provide timely responses to requests for 

information by the media, the public and the scientific community.

Assistance Administration Manual

The EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual—Part 1, Section 2: “Roles and 

Responsibilities”—designates the roles and responsibilities of grants management 

offices and program offices, as well as other key staff and managers administering 

assistance agreements. It is EPA policy to ensure that those with designated roles 

and responsibilities perform their duties, and they are held accountable for 

effective grants management. According to the EPA Assistance Administration 

Manual, one of the tasks of an EPA project officer is to provide customer service 

and to respond to requests and concerns.

Prior Audit Coverage

In EPA OIG Report No. 11-P-0386, Office of Research and Development Should 

Increase Awareness of Scientific Integrity Policies, July 22, 2011, we discussed 

whether the ORD had controls in place to address scientific integrity and research 

misconduct, and whether those controls were effective. The OIG found that 

32 percent of ORD science staff were unaware of the EPA’s Principles of 

Scientific Integrity. The OIG also found that the ORD had not updated the 

Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training since June 2005. The OIG made a

recommendation to improve the Principles of Scientific Integrity E-Training, to 

which ORD agreed. However, ORD also noted that the EPA’s Scientific Integrity 

Committee has been charged with standardizing scientific integrity training for 

the agency and ensuring that the appropriate EPA staff complete the necessary 

training courses. 
14-P-0247 4

In EPA OIG Report No. 13-P-0364, Quick Reaction Report: EPA Must Take Steps

to Implement Requirements of Its Scientific Integrity Policy, August 28, 2013, we 

addressed the EPA’s progress in implementing certain requirements of its

agencywide Scientific Integrity Policy. We found that although an agencywide

training program was required by the agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy, the EPA

had not developed or implemented a program to instruct EPA employees on the

requirements and standards of scientific integrity. In addition, the EPA had not

generated and made publicly available an annual report on the status of scientific

integrity within the agency as required by the policy. The report recommended that 

the EPA Deputy Administrator direct the Scientific Integrity Committee to

(1) develop and implement agencywide training on the Scientific Integrity Policy

in a manner that will minimize further delay in the EPA’s adherence to policy

requirements, (2) complete and issue an annual report on the status of scientific

integrity in the agency before its first formal review of the policy, and (3) provide

the Deputy Administrator with a written plan describing the action plan and

milestones for implementing and completing the training and issuing the annual

report. Since issuing our report, EPA has implemented or is in the process of 

implementing all recommendations.

Responsible Offices

The offices responsible for implementing the audit recommendations included in 

this report are the Office of Water’s Office of Science and Technology and the 

Standards and Health Protection Division; and, the Office of Research and 

Development’s Office of the Science Advisor and National Center for 

Environmental Research.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our evaluation from July 2012 through December 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our review objectives.

We interviewed appropriate OW and ORD employees named in the hotline, the 

EPA grantee, and the EPA contractor staff. We reviewed supporting documents,

including EPA grant and contract files and email documentation.

1 We also 

reviewed fish-consumption advisories for the sites from which fish were sampled 

by the EPA contractor, and draft products prepared by the EPA contractor for the 

 

1 The hotline complaint addressed the grant for the selenium in fish work. Therefore, our analysis included the 

review of the EPA contract awarded to a contractor to conduct a fish-contamination study for the OW that produced 

the information the grantee requested from the agency and the OW employee.
14-P-0247 5

OW. We also reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and the EPA’s policy and 

guidance documents.
14-P-0247 6

Chapter 2

OW Staff Did Not Respond to Data Requests 

in a Timely Manner

We did not substantiate hotline allegations that the OW employee requested the 

ORD to terminate the EPA grant, or that the OW employee directed an EPA 

contractor not to publish fish-contamination data. However, we found that the OW 

employee and an immediate supervisor did not respond in a timely manner to the 

EPA grantee’s requests for fish-contamination data the OW obtained from an EPA 

contractor in 2008. In addition, our work shows that the OW employee expressed 

concern to a senior OW staff member regarding ORD funding the grant. After 

making eight requests for the data starting in September 2011, the EPA grantee 

eventually obtained the data on May 31, 2012, after the OW posted the data on the 

EPA website. We also found that the ORD project officers provided limited 

assistance to help the EPA grantee obtain the requested data, which is inconsistent 

with the agency’s Assistance Administration Manual. The manual requires that 

project officers provide customer service and respond to requests or concerns by 

recipients of EPA assistance agreements.

As a result of these actions, data that could have contributed to a scientific 

understanding of mercury and selenium interactions in fish was withheld from the 

EPA grantee for 8 months. In addition, although the OW had the data since 2008, 

OW did not post the data on the EPA’s website until 2012. This 4-year delay in 

making the data available to the general public prevented certain states from 

having the opportunity to determine whether they needed to revise their advisories 

on fish the public could safely eat.

Two Hotline Allegations Not Substantiated

We did not substantiate two of the allegations stated in the hotline complaint. 

One allegation was that the OW employee contacted the ORD project officer to 

request termination of the EPA grant. According to the OW employee and both 

ORD project officers who monitored the EPA grant, the OW employee did not 

ask the officers to terminate the grant. Although we did not substantiate the 

allegation that the OW employee requested the grant be terminated, we found that 

the employee questioned the ORD decision to fund the grant. Specifically, when 

the OW employee was informed about ORD funding the grant, the employee 

expressed concern to a senior OW staff member. During an interview with the 

OIG, the OW employee stated the belief that the EPA grantee supported a 

scientific hypothesis on the interaction of mercury and selenium in fish, which the 

employee believed did not agree with the OW’s current position on the issue.
14-P-0247 7

Another allegation was that the OW employee directed the EPA contractor not to 

publish the fish-contamination data that the EPA grantee requested. According to 

the EPA contractor, the OW employee did not tell the contractor not to publish 

the data. 

OW Acquired Fish-Contamination Data in 2008 

Under an EPA contract, the agency paid over $610,000 to a contractor to conduct 

a fish-contamination study for the OW. The initial objectives for the study were to 

determine whether:

1. Mercury levels in fish sampled from selected existing state fish

consumption advisory sites issued prior to 2000 have changed since last 

measured by state and/or tribal agencies.

2. New mercury tissue data support changes to existing consumption

recommendations.

The study generated data on mercury and selenium levels in freshwater fish from 

locations within states that had fish-consumption advisories due to mercury 

contamination. The EPA contractor provided the data on mercury levels in fish to 

the OW employee in February 2008. The EPA contractor gave a report on the 

mercury and selenium study to the OW employee in July 2008. The OW then put 

the report through both internal and external peer review. 

As a result of the peer reviews, the EPA amended the work assignment to have 

the EPA contractor incorporate comments from the review into the final product. 

The amended work assignment also required the EPA contractor to change the 

study report into two manuscripts—one on the mercury results and one on the 

selenium results. The EPA contractor sent the OW employee a draft manuscript 

containing results on selenium in fish in October 2008. Draft manuscripts with 

results on mercury in fish were sent in October 2008, June 2009 and September 

2009.

OW Staff Did Not Respond Timely and Provide Data to the Grantee

From September 2011 through May 22, 2012, the EPA grantee made eight data 

requests to the OW employee. In September 2011, the EPA grantee sent request 

letters to numerous organizations. The grantee asked the organizations to provide 

existing data on mercury and selenium in fish in order to support the grantee’s 

research. The grantee stated that a letter was also sent to the OW and directly to

the OW employee during this period. The OW employee said he never received

this initial request letter, but on September 19, 2011, a Minnesota state official 

provided the OW employee with a copy of the data-request letter received from 

the EPA grantee, thereby making the OW employee aware of the grantee’s data 

request for mercury and selenium in fish data. The letter stated that “...In support 

of this effort, we are seeking all sources of data (published and unpublished) that 
14-P-0247 8

report the concentrations of these elements in fish, with emphasis on data sources

where both elements were assessed in the same fish sample....” After receiving 

this letter, the OW employee contacted the ORD project officer in September 

2011. The project officer stated that the OW employee complained that the 

grantee was sending an inappropriate request letter to external organizations 

requesting data. The project officer researched the issue and found no problems 

with the request. However, the project officer stated that attempts to contact the 

OW employee failed because the OW employee never returned calls or responded 

to a March 2012 email to discuss the issue further.

According to the EPA grantee, by March 31, 2012, most of the organizations had 

provided the requested data in response to the grantee’s initial request letter. 

Between February 17 and May 22, 2012, the EPA grantee sent the OW employee 

seven follow-up emails asking for the data. During that timeframe, however, the

OW employee only responded to one of the grantee’s emails, which the grantee

sent on April 12, 2012. In that email, the grantee specifically asked for access to 

the OW fish-contamination data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

On the same day, instead of providing the requested data, the OW employee 

provided information on how to submit a formal request under FOIA. The EPA 

grantee decided not to file a formal FOIA request, stating that such a request 

could potentially make interactions with the OW worse. During our meeting to 

discuss the agency’s comments on our draft report, the OW manager stated that 

the OW employee acted appropriately when instructing the grantee to file a 

formal FOIA request. 

According to the OW employee and the immediate supervisor, the employee

informed the immediate supervisor about some of the data-request emails 

received from the EPA grantee. The OW employee stated that the supervisor’s

recommendation was for the employee not to reply to the emails, and instead 

reply to the grantee when the data became available on the EPA website.

OW posted the data from its fish study on the EPA website on May 23, 2012. 

On May 24, 2012, the OW employee used email to notify the EPA grantee that 

the data of interest may be on the EPA website. The OW employee also provided

a website link. 

The EPA grantee was not able to locate the study data on the EPA website from 

the link provided.

2 As a result, the EPA grantee requested the study data in 

electronic format from the EPA contractor staff via an email dated May 30, 2012. 

Since the EPA contractor staff was aware of the data’s availability on the EPA 

website, on May 31, 2012, contractor staff emailed the EPA grantee two 

spreadsheets containing the data. According to the grantee’s 2013 annual progress 

report, the delays in obtaining the data from the agency was one of the factors that

necessitated extending the grant’s planned completion date a year.

 

2 The OIG audit team attempted to find the study data on the EPA website and found it difficult without assistance.
14-P-0247 9

Reasons for Not Responding to the Grantee’s Data Requests

The OW employee and immediate supervisor acknowledged they did not provide 

the data to the EPA grantee when the requests were made in 2012. Both the OW 

employee and immediate supervisor told us that the reason was they were still 

trying to decide what to do with the fish-contamination data and draft products 

given to the OW employee by the EPA contractor in 2008 and 2009. According to 

the OW employee, to meet the OW’s original objectives for the study, the plan 

was to have the EPA contractor compare its mercury measurements to prior 

mercury measurements that were taken by states and were the basis for issuing the 

fish-consumption advisories. According to the OW employee, the quality of 

earlier mercury measurements taken by the states was unknown. Therefore, the 

OW employee and the contractor determined they could not do the data 

comparison and could not meet the OW’s study objective as originally intended. 

The explanations provided by the OW employee and the supervisor do not explain

why giving the data to the grantee would impair the OW’s use of the data. In 

addition, despite repeated requests over several months, the OW employee never 

disclosed or explained to the EPA grantee why the employee was not providing 

the fish-contamination data. 

A lack of awareness by the OW employee and the lack of understanding by the 

supervisor about the requirements in the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy is also 

an underlying reason why these OW personnel did not respond to the EPA 

grantee’s requests in a timely manner. The OW employee’s supervisor indicated 

being aware that the EPA has a Scientific Integrity Policy, but stated that while 

the policy requires “timely” dissemination of information, the policy does not 

indicate specific timeframes. Therefore, despite numerous and repeated requests 

made by the EPA grantee, the supervisor believed that their release of the data

was timely. When we contacted the OW employee in January 2013, the employee

acknowledged a general awareness of the existence of the policy, but a lack of 

awareness concerning the text of the policy or its specific requirements.

3

ORD Provided Limited Assistance to Help the Grantee Obtain Data 

According to the EPA Assistance Administration Manual, one of the tasks of an 

EPA project officer is to provide customer service and respond to requests and 

concerns. However, we found that ORD project officers provided limited

assistance to the EPA grantee, despite awareness that the grantee was having 

difficulty obtaining the OW’s fish-contamination data needed for grant research. 

The two ORD project officers responsible for monitoring the grant could have 

better supported the EPA grantee’s effort to obtain the data by communicating 

more with the OW employee and elevating impediments to a resolution to senior 

 

3

In response to OIG Report No. 13-P-0364, Quick ReactionReport: EPA Must Take Stepsto Implement

Requirementsof Its Scientific Integrity Policy, issued August 28, 2013, the EPA on November 21, 2013, implemented 

its Scientific Integrity training program. 
14-P-0247 10

ORD managers. There were also lapses in communication between the OW 

employee and the ORD project officers. We believe that these actions are not 

consistent with the EPA Assistance Administration Manual.

Although the initial ORD project officer made a limited effort to contact the OW 

employee to facilitate the EPA grantee’s data request, the current project officer 

did very little to help the grantee obtain the fish-contamination data. The initial 

project officer’s detail to another position a few months after the EPA grant was 

awarded also impacted communications between the project officer and the OW 

employee. The initial project officer was detailed to another position in July 2011, 

and a replacement was not assigned until April 2012. Despite not being able to 

monitor the grant on a full-time basis, the initial project officer said the following 

actions were taken regarding the EPA grantee’s data requests:

 Held one September 2011 telephone conversation with the OW employee, 

who was concerned about the language in the EPA grantee’s data-request 

letter sent to state agencies.

 Relayed the OW employee’s concerns about the data request to the EPA 

grantee during a September 2011 workshop.

 Reviewed the language of the EPA grantee’s data-request letter sent to 

state agencies and concluded the language was satisfactory.

 Sent a March 2012 email asking the OW employee to discuss the grant 

under which the grantee made the data request, but did not receive a 

response.

Starting in April 2012, the EPA grantee shared ongoing concerns with the current 

project officer about the difficulty obtaining the requested data. The EPA grantee 

shared these concerns with the current project officer via telephone and email, and 

through the grantee’s annual progress report for the year ending March 30, 2012. 

However, the current project officer said steps were not taken to help the EPA 

grantee obtain the fish-contamination data because the current project officer:

 Did not see it as a responsibility to intervene because the officer believed 

there needs to be distance between the project officer and the grantee in 

order to avoid the appearance of advocating for one grantee over another 

grantee.

 Believed the OW study data being requested was not fundamental for the 

EPA grantee to complete the grant research. 

The initial project officer raised the EPA grantee’s data request issue with an 

ORD team leader. According to the team leader, the ORD had not previously 

dealt with an issue of this nature. The ORD team leader did not advise the project

officer on the course of action to take in addressing the issue, or share with the 

team leader’s supervisor the concerns discussed with the project officer pertaining 

to the EPA grantee’s data requests. The supervisor for the ORD team leader 
14-P-0247 11

confirmed that neither of the two project officers informed her about the 

difficulties that the EPA grantee experienced obtaining the data from the OW.

OW Delayed Public Access to Scientific Data and Reports

As noted previously, the OW eventually posted its fish-contamination data on the 

EPA website in May 2012. However, the data was collected by the EPA 

contractor and provided to the OW employee as early as 2008. To date, the OW 

has yet to publish or publicly release any of the draft study reports or draft 

manuscripts that the EPA contractor submitted to the OW employee in 2008 and 

2009, despite the EPA investing over $600,000 in this research. The draft study 

reports addressed whether the collected mercury and selenium measurements in 

fish support changes to the existing fish-consumption advisories by states. These

study reports remain unpublished by the OW and could potentially impact the 

health of the public who eat freshwater fish. 

States, U.S. territories and Native American tribes have primary responsibility for 

protecting residents from health risks associated with consuming contaminated,

non-commercially caught fish and wildlife. They do this by issuing fishconsumption advisories. The advisories recommend that the general population, 

including recreational and subsistence fishers, as well as sensitive subpopulations 

(e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers and children), limit or avoid consuming 

certain fish and wildlife species because of mercury concentrations. 

The OW published the Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for 

Use in Fish Advisories to guide state health officials responsible for designing 

contaminant-monitoring programs and issuing fish- and shellfish-consumption 

advisories. The publication only provides guidance; it does not constitute a 

regulatory requirement and offers great flexibility to users. 

When applying the EPA methodologies found in the guidance publication to 

mercury and selenium study data, the EPA contractor concluded that some of the 

current fish-consumption advisories for mercury and selenium could be either 

more restrictive or less restrictive. With regard to selenium contamination, the 

EPA contractor’s October 2008 manuscript submitted to the OW employee 

identified two bodies of water in the United States with selenium levels in fish 

above 1.5 micrograms per gram, which is high enough to limit fish meals to 16 or 

fewer per month, according to the publication. At the time, these locations had 

advisories about mercury, but not about selenium. Regarding mercury 

contamination of the 95 sites reviewed in the report, the EPA contractor’s 

July 2008 draft report stated that:

 The same fish-consumption advisory could be issued for 41 U.S. sites.

 A more restrictive fish-consumption advisory could be issued for 

35 U.S. sites.
14-P-0247 12

 A less restrictive fish-consumption advisory could be issued for 

19 U.S. sites.

The EPA contractor suggested states might want to periodically re-evaluate their 

fish-consumption advisories issued to the public, especially those advisories 

issued for sites where the contractor’s study concluded more fish-consumption 

restrictions might be appropriate. Using its discretion, the OW has not publically 

released this report because they state the conclusions in the contractor’s draft 

report could not be supported by the data. However, the OW had the report peer 

reviewed and stated that the data provides an excellent baseline for future studies. 

Further, OW did not challenge excerpts from the report stating that some fish 

advisories may need to be changed.

Conclusion

An OW employee and an immediate supervisor did not respond in a timely

manner to an EPA grantee’s repeated requests for fish-contamination data. The 

OW employee and the immediate supervisor lacked awareness or understanding

of the requirements found in the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy, and ultimately 

demonstrated actions that do not adhere to the policy. In addition, despite their 

awareness of the problem, two ORD project officers who monitored the grant

provided limited assistance to the EPA grantee trying to obtain fish-contamination

data from the OW. We believe that the assistance provided by the project officers 

is inconsistent with the responsibilities they are expected to carry out under the 

EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual. 

As a result of the actions undertaken by these EPA employees, it took 8 months 

for a grantee working on EPA-funded research to obtain data that could have been 

beneficial for completing the grant research. The information withheld could have 

led to earlier contributions related to furthering the scientific understanding of

mercury and selenium interactions in fish. In addition, withholding the 

information prevented certain states from having the opportunity to determine 

whether they needed to revise their advisories on fish the public could safely eat. 

Further, the EPA spent over $600,000 in government funds to conduct a study for 

which the OW has yet to publish or publicly release any of the draft study reports 

or manuscripts provided by the contractor in 2008 and 2009. 

Recommendations

 

We recommend that the agency’s Scientific Integrity Official:

1. Develop standard operating procedures that detail how staff are to comply 

with the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy requirement to provide timely 

responses to requests for information by the media, the public and the 

scientific community. 
14-P-0247 13

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development:

2. Develop standard operating procedures to ensure that ORD staff that 

serve as project officers on grants are adhering to their responsibilities 

under the EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual.

Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation

We received comments from the OW and ORD. We reviewed the OW and ORD 

comments and made changes to the report as needed. Appendix A contains the 

OW comments and appendix B contains the ORD comments, along with our 

detailed responses.

The OW did not concur with the draft report findings and believed our report was 

inaccurate in several areas. Although the OW disagreed with the findings, it

agreed with the need for guidance on “timely” release of information, as the 

EPA’s current Scientific Integrity Policy lacks a definition for “timely.” The OW 

responded that the agency’s Scientific Integrity Official supports the need for a 

consistent agencywide approach to determining timeliness. The Scientific

Integrity Official agreed to take the lead in addressing recommendation 1 and 

provided a projected completion date of December 2014. Recommendation 1 is 

resolved and open pending completion of the planned corrective action.

In its response, the ORD stated that the ORD/NCER project officers responded 

appropriately to the grantee requests. ORD’s response provided additional 

standard operating procedures and guidance released late in 2013 that they 

indicate represents standard operating procedures to ensure that ORD staff that 

serve as project officers on grants are adhering to their responsibilities under the 

EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual. The OIG did not concur and,

subsequently, the ORD provided us with a revision to the NCER Operational 

Manual and Project Officer Manual which is sufficient to meet the intent of our 

recommendation. Therefore, recommendation 2 is resolved with all agreed-to 

actions completed. 
14-P-0247 14

Status of Recommendations and 

 Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 12 Develop standard operating procedures that detail

how staff are to comply with the EPA Scientific 

Integrity Policy requirement to provide timely 

responses to requests for information by the media, 

the public and the scientific community.

O Scientific Integrity Official 12/31/14

2 13 Develop standard operating procedures to ensure 

that ORD staff that serve as project officers on 

grants are adhering to their responsibilities under 

the EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual.

C Assistant Administrator for 

Research and Development

3/12/2014

1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
14-P-0247 15

Appendix A 

OW Response to Draft Report 

(January 30, 2014) 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Draft Report: EPA Employees Did Not Act Consistent with Agency Policy in 

Assisting an EPA Grantee - Project No. OPE-FY12-0020 

FROM: Michael H. Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator and 

 Deputy Scientific Integrity Official 

 

TO: Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General 

 Office of Program Evaluation 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on OIG’s draft report, EPA Employees 

Did Not Act Consistent with Agency Policy in Assisting an EPA Grantee, dated December 18, 

2013. As required, we are providing our written response to the OIG’s findings, conclusions and 

recommendations in the draft report that addresses two major areas, covering three allegations. 

OW nonconcurs with OIG’s findings associated with all three allegations, because of numerous 

inaccuracies. Specifically: 

1. The OIG agreed that the OW employee did not take the actions alleged in the hotline 

complaint, but asserted that the employee expressed “disbelief” regarding ORD funding 

the grant. The report misrepresents this disbelief as being about the scientific merit 

behind the grant. However, the correct reason for the OW employee’s disbelief was that 

the grant proposal did not undergo OW’s relevancy review before the grant award.

2. The OIG concluded that the OW employee and immediate supervisor did not release fish 

contamination data in a timely manner to the grantee and the public. The report is 

inaccurate as to when the grantee first requested the data from the OW employee, why the 

OIG Response 1: Two of the three allegations against the OW employee were not 

substantiated. We did find that the OW employee and his immediate supervisor did not 

provide the requested data to the grantee in a timely manner. In a March 6, 2014, meeting to 

discuss the agency’s comments on the draft report, the OW employee stated that his disbelief 

was due to concerns that the OW was not involved in approving the grant. Based on this 

clarification, the OIG has changed the term “disbelief” used in the draft report to “concern” in 

the final report. However, despite this clarification, the OW’s explanation does not address all 

the reasons the OW employee objected to the grant. For example, in an email dated 

September 19, 2011, the OW employee stated that he could not believe that EPA gave the 

grantee a half-million dollars to do the work and that it must be a parting gift for an EPA 

employee who assisted the grantee in previous work related to this topic. 
14-P-0247 16

report was not released, whether the employee followed the agency’s FOIA policies, and 

many other circumstances.

Finally, the OIG recommends that the Assistant Administrator for Water develop standard 

operating procedures that detail how staff is to comply with the EPA Scientific Integrity 

Policy requirement to provide timely responses to requests for information by the media, the 

public and the scientific community. OW agrees with the need for guidance on “timely”

release of information, as the Policy lacks a definition for “timely.” Thus, OW believes that a 

definition needs to be developed which is consistent Agency-wide. Dr. Francesca Grifo, the 

Agency’s Scientific Integrity Official, supports the need for a consistent Agency-wide 

approach to determining timeliness. In response to a February 22, 2013, memorandum from 

OSTP, the EPA has submitted a draft plan for increasing access to the results of federallyfunded scientific research that would include data sets such as the one in question. Comments 

are expected back from OSTP in early March. Dr. Grifo will then take steps to work with the 

OW Deputy Scientific Integrity Official and other members of the Agency's Scientific 

Integrity Committee to begin to develop Agency-wide guidance.

The attachment to this memorandum identifies the OIG’s findings, excerpts statements in the 

report that purport to support the findings, and responds to inaccuracies in the findings and 

OIG Response 2: The report accurately reflects when and how the OW employee was 

notified of the grantee’s request. The OW employee stated that on September 19, 2011, 

a state of Minnesota official provided him with the request they had received from the 

grantee, and that he talked to OW and ORD officials about it. The grantee stated a data 

request was mailed to the OW employee on September 21, 2011. Although the OW 

employee stated he did not get the request, he was aware that a request was made for the 

data before acknowledging the receipt of the grantee’s follow-up request on February 12, 

2012. Specifically, the OW employee called the ORD project officer in September 2011 to 

complain about the grant after a state of Minnesota official provided a copy of the 

grantee’s request letter. The letter specifically requested, from all sources, any published 

or nonpublished data on mercury and selenium in fish. We address not releasing the data 

and FOIA issues in OIG Response 6.

OIG Response 3: We agree and accept the described plans to develop agencywide 

guidance for ‘timeliness’ under the Scientific Integrity Policy. At the March 6, 2014,

meeting to discuss the agency’s comments on our draft report, the Scientific Integrity 

Official agreed to be the action official for this recommendation (recommendation 1) 

because it will apply to all EPA employees. ORD agreed to track the corrective action. 

The Scientific Integrity Official provided a projected completion date of 

December 2014 for corrective action. Recommendation 1 is resolved and open 

pending completion of the planned corrective action.
14-P-0247 17

supporting statements. We look forward to having an opportunity to discuss the draft report and 

our comments with you.

Attachment

Response to Draft OIG Report: EPA Employees Did Not Act Consistent with 

Agency Policy in Assisting an EPA Grantee

Allegation #1: The OW employee asked ORD to terminate the grant (based on a 

hotline complaint).

Allegation #2: The OW employee directed an EPA contractor not to publish data 

on mercury and selenium levels in fish (based on a hotline complaint).

 OIG Finding: The OIG did not substantiate the hotline complaints regarding a request to 

terminate the grant and direction to a contractor not to publish data. However, the OIG 

asserts that the employee expressed “disbelief” to a senior OW staff member regarding 

ORD’s funding the grant.

 Statements on page 5, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, page 6 and all other locations in the report 

related to the OW employee’s requesting that ORD terminate a grant or directing an EPA 

contractor not to publish data on mercury and selenium levels in fish and statements 

regarding the OW employee’s expression of disbelief. 

“. . . the employee did not ask the officers to terminate the grant.”

“ . . . the OW employee did not tell the contractor not to publish the data.” 

“We did not substantiate hotline allegations. . . However, we found that the OW 

employee expressed disbelief. . .”

“Although we did not substantiate the allegation that the OW employee requested the 

grant be terminated, we found that the employee questioned the ORD decision to fund the 

grant. Specifically, when the OW employee was informed about ORD funding the grant, 

the employee expressed disbelief to a senior OW staff member.”

“ . . . the OW employee did not tell the contractor not to publish the data.”. . .the OW 

employee expressed disbelief to a senior OW staff member.”

“We did not substantiate hotline allegations. . . However, we found that the OW 

employee expressed disbelief. . .”

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because the OIG misrepresented why 

the employee expressed disbelief. For two years prior to the events under review in this 
14-P-0247 18

report, OW and ORD coordinated high level reviews of ORD presentations, manuscripts 

and interviews about selenium and fish. The reviews resulted in interoffice agreements on 

how the Agency would characterize and use information related to interactions between 

mercury and selenium in fish tissue. 

His disbelief was not about the scientific merit of the grant, but that OW had not been 

included in reviewing the grant proposal for relevancy to national water program research 

needs.

Regarding the STAR grant award, the senior OW staff person wrote in an email dated 

September 19, 2011, to the OW employee, “What a mess. Here is the info on line re their 

grant. I certainly wish that NCER has asked OW to review.” After learning the details of 

the grant award, the OW employee responded in an email on September 20, 2011, “OK –

nothing left to find. EERC/NDU competed for and won the grant fair and square. Might 

even yield some interesting and useful data – though the interpretation/conclusions will 

potentially be a bit biased.”

Allegation #3: The OW employee did not cooperate with the EPA grantee’s 

request for mercury and selenium data. (based on a hotline complaint)

1. OIG Finding: The OIG found that eight months elapsed between when the OW employee 

received a data request from the grantee and when OW made the data available to the 

grantee.

 Statements on pages 5, 6, 11 and all other statements in the report related to how much 

time elapsed between when the OW employee received a data request from the grantee 

and when OW made the data available to the grantee. 

“After making eight requests for the data starting in September 2011. . .”

“As a result of these actions. . . data was withheld from the EPA grantee for 8 months.”

“From September 2011 through May 22, 2012, the EPA grantee made eight data requests 

to the OW employee."

“According to the grantee’s 2013 annual progress report, the delay in obtaining the data 

from the agency was one of the factors that necessitated extending the grant’s planned 

completion date a year.”

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because only three months elapsed 

between when the OW employee received a February 17, 2012, email from the grantee 

and May 23, 2012, when OW made the data available to the grantee. During those three 

OIG Response 4: Please see OIG Response 1.
14-P-0247 19

months, the EPA made a decision not to finalize the draft report, and evaluated the data to 

determine how to format it for release to the public. Furthermore, the timing of the 

release of the EPA’s data did not have any impact on launching or delaying the grantee’s 

research effort. The ORD project officer “believed the OW study data being requested 

was not fundamental for the EPA grantee to complete the grant research.” OW believes 

that:

 The OW employee received the first data request email on February 17, 2012.

 The OW employee posted the data on the EPA’s website on May 23, 2012.

 Three months elapsed from the grantee’s first request until the data were posted on 

the OW website. 

2. OIG Finding: The OIG found that the OW employee should have released the data to the 

grantee when he stated in an email that he intended to file a FOIA request to get the 

requested data.

 Statements on page 7 and all other statements in the report related to FOIA request.

“In that email [i.e., an email dated April 12, 2012, from the grantee to the OW employee] 

the grantee specifically asked for access to the OW fish-contamination data under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). On the same day, instead of providing the requested 

data, the OW employee provided information on how to submit a formal request under 

FOIA.”

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because the OW employee followed the 

EPA’s FOIA policy. According to the EPA’s FOIA Intranet website 

http://oamintra.epa.gov/?q=node/238, all FOIA requests to the EPA are received by and 

filed with the Agency FOIA Officer. “No individual is allowed to respond to a FOIA 

request unless specifically authorized to do so.” 

OIG Response 5: The data was accepted in 2008 and remained unchanged. The 

OW staff indicated that they did not know what to do with the data because they 

failed to assess the quality of the pre-1995 comparison data before issuing the 

contract. In September 2011, the OW employee knew the grantee had requested 

fish and selenium data (published and unpublished) from all sources when he 

called the ORD project officer to complain about the issuance of the grant. 

Consequently, in 2011 the OW employee knew of a user of the data that would 

have provided some benefit for the $610,000 investment. However, the OW 

employee and his supervisor continued to hold onto the data even after 

acknowledging receipt of several emails from the grantee in February 2012.

OIG Response 6: Given that the data should have been provided to the grantee 

when requested in conformity with the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy that 

requires a scientist and his/her manager to provide timely responses to requests 

for information by the media, the public and the scientific community, the

grantee should not have to resort to the FOIA process. 
14-P-0247 20

3. OIG Finding: The OIG found that OW delayed public access to scientific data and reports, 

potentially endangering public health.

 Statements on page 9 and all other statements related to not releasing a report.

“These study reports remain unpublished by the OW and could potentially impact the 

health of the public who eat freshwater fish.”

“In addition, although the OW had the data since 2008, OW did not post the data on the 

EPA’s website until 2012. This 4-year delay in making the data available to the general 

public prevented certain states from having the opportunity to determine whether they 

needed to revise their advisories on fish the public could safely eat.”

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because release was not “delayed;” 

there is no basis for asserting that the timing of the release was “potentially endangering 

public health;” and the raw data were posted for public use. Releasing final data is a very 

time-consuming process since it requires QA/QC review and adherence to the EPA peer 

review policy guidance. Completing these activities can take months to years; in this case 

from 2006 - 2008. Only after that are the data available for analysis and interpretation, 

which can take additional years prior to release; in this case, from 2008 to 2012. These 

time periods are not atypical for fish tissue sampling and analysis, areas in which we have 

extensive experience. 

The intent of the study was to determine whether outdated methods and data were used to 

establish pre-1995 advisories, and if so, assess the impact of applying new data and the

EPA guidance. Unfortunately, documentation of the methods and data used prior to 1995 

were not available, preventing OW from meeting the objectives of the study and writing a 

report. We determined not to publish the draft report because the conclusions could not 

be supported by the data we had collected. Instead, OW posted the data for public use.

The data can serve as an excellent baseline for future studies.

Finally, the conclusion that public health may have been endangered is absolutely 

unsubstantiated. All of the study sites have fish consumption advisories in place. The 

sites were selected because they were under advisory.

OIG Response 7: The OIG did not use the phrase “potentially endangering public 

health” anywhere in its report. Rather, the OIG stated that the study reports “. . . could 

potentially impact the health of the public who eat freshwater fish.” The OW posted the 

raw data for public use in 2012, which is 4 years after the OW employee obtained study 

reports on mercury and selenium from an EPA contractor in July 2008. The data 

revealed that some sites may need stricter fish advisories due to the study findings. The 

study reported that 35 of the 95 sampled sites (37 percent) need a more restrictive fish 

advisory. The OW does not explain how the reports could have been accepted by OW

and peer reviewed, and yet contain unsupported findings.
14-P-0247 21

4. OIG Finding: The OIG found that despite having a draft report from the contractor, OW has 

not publicly released this report.

 Statements on page 10 and all other statements related to the contractor’s draft report.

“When applying the EPA methodologies found in the guidance publication to mercury 

and selenium study data, the EPA contractor concluded that some of the current fishconsumption advisories for mercury and selenium could be either more restrictive or less 

restrictive. With regard to selenium contamination, the EPA contractor’s October 2008 

manuscript submitted to the OW employee identified two bodies of water in the United 

States with selenium levels in fish above 1.5 micrograms per gram, which is high enough 

to limit fish meals to 16 or fewer per month, according to the publication. At the time, 

these locations had advisories about mercury, but not about selenium.”

" Regarding mercury contamination of the 95 sites reviewed in the report, the EPA 

contractor’s July 2008 draft report stated that:

 The same fish-consumption advisory could be issued for 41 U.S. sites.

 A more restrictive fish-consumption advisory could be issued for 35 U.S. sites. 

 A less restrictive fish-consumption advisory could be issued for 19 U.S. sites."

“The EPA contractor suggested states might want to periodically re-evaluate their fishconsumption advisories issued to the public, especially those advisories issued for sites 

where the contractor’s study concluded more fish-consumption restrictions might be 

appropriate. However, the EPA has not publically released this report.”

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because OW’s reasons for not 

finalizing the draft report are not included in the OIG report. We determined not to 

publish the draft report because the conclusions could not be supported by the data we 

had collected. However, all of the data from the study were released and made publicly 

available on May 23, 2012. State fish advisories are based on each state’s assumptions 

which may or may not be consistent with the EPA’s default assumptions. Therefore, the 

contractor’s conclusions may or may not be correct and OW exercised prudent judgment 

in deciding not to issue a report on a study that did not meet its objectives and with 

conclusions that could not be supported.

OIG Response 8: The OW makes a general statement that the contractor 

report findings cannot be supported by the data collected. However, the OW 

does not provide any specific evidence that the report is not reliable. 

Specifically, no statements are made on the weaknesses of the preceding 

contractor statements regarding fish advisories. The report was peer reviewed,

which resulted in changes that the contractor made and the OW accepted. 

During the review, the OW staff stated they did not know what to do with the 

data and contractor reports, not that the data and reports were unreliable.
14-P-0247 22

5. OIG Finding: The IG states the cost of the OW project to be $610,000.

 Statements on pages 6, 9, and 11 and all other statements in the report related to the cost of the 

project. 

“Under an EPA contract, the agency paid over $610,000 to a contractor. . .”

“To date, the OW has yet to publish or publicly release any of the draft study reports. . . , despite 

the EPA investing over $600,000 in this research.”

“Further, the EPA spent over $600,000 in government funds to conduct a study for which the OW 

has yet to publish. . .”

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because the OIG presents the cost with 

no context and implies that because a report was not published, the funds were not wellspent. Most of the funding invested in the study was spent on catching, processing and 

analyzing the fish for mercury and selenium. The cost is typical for the number of 

samples collected. Although OW did not produce a final report because the conclusions 

in the contractor’s draft report could not be supported by the data we had collected, all 

the raw data are posted for public use. Data and information related to the pre-1995 

advisories were not available, thus making the objectives of the study unachievable. 

6. OIG Finding: The IG found that an OW employee and an immediate supervisor did not 

respond in a timely manner to an EPA grantee’s repeated requests for fish-contamination 

data.

 Statements on pages 8, 11 and all other statements in the report related timely 

release of data.

"The OW employee’s supervisor indicated being aware that the EPA has a Scientific 

Integrity Policy, but stated that while the policy requires “timely” dissemination of 

information, the policy does not indicate specific timeframes. Therefore, despite 

numerous and repeated requests made by the EPA grantee, the supervisor believed that 

their release of the data was timely."

“The OW employee and the immediate supervisor lacked awareness or understanding of 

the requirements found in the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy, and ultimately 

demonstrated actions that do not adhere to the policy.”

OIG Response 9: The report does provide context on this issue. The OW failed 

to determine the utility of the pre-1995 data before issuing the contract. The 

contractor reports were peer reviewed, changed based on peer review comments, 

and accepted by the OW. However, the OW posted the information with no 

report on the strengths or limitations of the data, including an explanation of 

why the peer review process was unreliable. Consequently, the OW posted the 

data but provided potential users no information on the quality of the data. 
14-P-0247 23

 OW Response: OW nonconcurs with the finding because the timing of the release of 

data was appropriate in this situation. Only three months elapsed between when the EPA 

grantee first requested the data and when it was posted on the website for public use. 

During those three months, the EPA made a decision not to finalize the draft report, and 

evaluated the data to determine how to format it for release to the public.

The Principles of Scientific Integrity and a March 2009 Presidential memorandum were 

the documents governing scientific integrity during the study period. The OIG 

summarizes the requirements of those documents on pages 2 and 3 of its report; neither 

document addresses timeliness. The Science Integrity Policy, which is now the applicable 

policy document, requires timely responses to requests for information, but it does not 

specifically indicate what constitutes “timeliness.” What constitutes timeliness in one

situation may not be timely in another. 

OIG Recommendation

The OIG recommends that the Assistant Administrator for Water develop standard operating 

procedures that detail how staff are to comply with the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy

requirement to provide timely responses to requests for information by the media, the public and 

the scientific community.

OW Response

OW believes that we responded timely to the requests from the grantee for access to data. OW 

also issued all the data from the study to the public in a timely manner. In addition, all OW 

employees took mandatory training in the latter part of 2013 on the Scientific Integrity Policy. 

We believe this action made our employees aware of the requirements regarding timely release 

of data.

However, OW agrees with the need for guidance on “timely” release of information, as the 

Policy lacks a definition for “timely.” Thus, OW believes that a definition needs to be developed 

that is consistent Agency-wide. Dr. Francesca Grifo, the Agency’s Scientific Integrity Official, 

supports the need for a consistent Agency-wide approach to determining timeliness. In response 

to a February 22, 2013, memorandum from OSTP, the EPA has submitted a draft plan for 

increasing access to the results of federally-funded scientific research which would include data 

sets such as the one in question. Comments are expected back from OSTP in early March. Dr. 

Grifo will then take steps to work with the OW Deputy Scientific Integrity Policy Official and 

other members of the Agency's Scientific Integrity Committee to begin to develop Agency-wide 

guidance.

OIG Response 10: We addressed the OW position on timeliness in OIG Responses 2, 3 

and 4.

OIG Response 11: Please see OIG Response 3 regarding the recommendation.
14-P-0247 24

Appendix B

ORD Response to Draft Report 

(January 30, 2014)

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report, EPA Employees Did 

Not Act Consistent with Agency Policy in Assisting an EPA Grantee, dated 

December 19, 2013

FROM: Lek G. Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General

Office of Inspector General 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the OIG’s draft report, EPA Employees 

Did Not Act Consistent With Agency Policy in Assisting an EPA Grantee, (Project No. OPEFY12-0020).

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) appreciates the analysis the OIG staff provided 

regarding their expectations for “customer service and to respond to requests and concerns.” We 

believe the ORD/NCER project officers responded appropriately to grantee requests. ORD takes 

customer service seriously. 

Provided in the table below, is ORD’s response to the OIG’s recommendation.

Rec. 

No.

Subject Corrective Action Estimated 

Completion 

Date

2 Develop standard 

operating 

procedures to ensure 

that ORD staff that 

serve as project 

officers on grants 

are adhering to their 

responsibilities 

under the EPA’s 

Assistance 

Administration 

Manual.

ORD will continue providing standard operating 

procedures and guidance to NCER project officers via the 

NCER Extramural Management Policies and Procedures 

Library. Additionally, in 2013, ORD released the NCER 

Operations Manual, NCER Project Officer’s Manual, and 

NCER Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance for 

Annual Progress Report Review and Baseline Monitoring 

Reports, each of which provides guidance and standard 

operating procedures to ensure that ORD staff that serve as 

project officers on grants are adhering to their 

responsibilities under the EPA’s Assistance Administration 

Manual.

Completed
14-P-0247 25

Should you or your staff have any questions related to EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development’s responsibilities for recommendation 2, please contact Deborah Heckman at (202) 

564-7274.

cc: Ramona Trovato

 Bob Kavlock

 Jim Johnson

OIG Response 12: The agency’s Assistance Administration Manual requires project 

officers to provide customer service and respond to requests or concerns by recipients 

of EPA assistance agreements. Our draft report demonstrates that the two ORD project 

officers responsible for monitoring the grant did not elevate to senior ORD officials the 

OW denial of data to the ORD grantee. That would have allowed senior ORD officials 

the opportunity to resolve the issue in accordance with the agency’s Assistance

Administration Manual. 

In its response, the ORD lists additional standard operating procedures and guidance 

released late in 2013 that represent standard operating procedures to ensure that ORD 

staff that serve as project officers on grants are adhering to their responsibilities under 

the EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual. Specifically, the NCER Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidance for Annual Progress Report Review and Baseline 

Monitoring Reports (dated November 2013) covers project officer responsibilities to 

discuss any difficulties encountered or that might be encountered in carrying out the 

project, as well as remedial actions that have or might be taken. The NCER Operations 

Manual (dated September 2013) provides appropriate guidance to assist awardees 

during post-award management.

Our analysis of these new standard operating procedures and guidance documents 

revealed them to be more descriptive of project officers’ responsibilities in the postaward monitoring phase, which was when the EPA grantee was having data acquisition 

problems. However, our analysis did not reveal procedures for the elevation of 

outstanding issues to upper level ORD management for matters that cannot be resolved 

at the project officer level. During our March 6, 2014, meeting to discuss agency 

comments on the draft report, the ORD agreed to make revisions to guidance released 

late in 2013. On March 12, 2014, the ORD provided the OIG with its revised NCER 

Operational Manual and Project Officer Manual that included language to elevate 

conversations to the next supervisory level in order to manage a situation for which no 

guidance is available for common issues that derail research progress. The OIG has 

determined the corrective actions taken by the ORD to be sufficient to meet the intent of 

our recommendation. Therefore, recommendation 2 is resolved with all agreed-to 

actions completed.
14-P-0247 26

Appendix C

Distribution

Office of the Administrator

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

Assistant Administrator for Water

Scientific Integrity Official, Office of Research and Development

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, Office of Research and Development

Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

Director, National Center for Environmental Research, Office of Research and Development

Director, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water

Director, Standards and Health Protection Division, Office of Water

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Research and Development

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water