U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Implementation Plan With 

Cost Sharing Methodology 

Needed for Region 8 

Senior Environmental Employee 

Work on Lead Risk Reduction 

Report No. 13-P-0430 September 24, 2013 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

Report Contributors: Patrick Gilbride

 Erin Barnes-Weaver 

 Luke Stolz 

Abbreviations 

ECEJ Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FY Fiscal Year 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OPRA Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance 

RRP Renovation, Repair and Painting 

SEE Senior Environmental Employment/Employees 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

13-P-0430 

September 24, 2013 

Why We Did This Review 

In November 2012, we 

received a hotline complaint on 

Implementation Plan With Cost Sharing Methodology 

Needed for Region 8 Senior Environmental Employee 

Work on Lead Risk Reduction 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance 

funds utilization for work done 

by Region 8 Senior 

Environmental Employment 

(SEE) program grantees to 

address lead-based paint 

programs. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 8 office jointly 

implements lead-based paint 

programs in two program 

offices, each with SEE 

assistance. After preliminary 

fact finding on the merits of the 

complaint, we opened an 

assignment to determine the 

extent to which the two offices 

have work plans on agreed-to 

SEE activities and a 

methodology for SEE funding. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA themes: 

 Taking action on toxics and 

chemical safety. 

 Embracing EPA as a high 

performing organization. 

What We Found 

The two Region 8 program offices that jointly implement the Lead Renovation, 

Repair and Painting Program do not have methodology or agreement for sharing 

SEE funding, which has led to confusion about respective roles and tasks. 

Additionally, most of the funding has gone to the office that does not have a 

finalized work plan and, as a result, the other office cut its SEEs to part-time. 

Because of our inquiry, the region has redistributed funds. However, even though 

the two offices have recently discussed the importance of joint strategic planning, 

they have yet to reach a long-term agreement on SEE activities and related 

funding. 

A prior situation in Region 8 between two offices jointly implementing a Clean Air 

Act program provides a sound approach to improving management of Lead 

Renovation, Repair and Painting Program SEE activities. 

 Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions 

We recommend that the Region 8 regional administrator develop a strategy for 

implementing the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program that defines 

program goals, performance measures, organizational responsibilities, and a 

methodology for allocating SEE funding. We also recommend that the regional 

administrator develop an oversight process to evaluate the region’s success in 

implementing the strategy. Region 8 agreed with our recommendations and has 

initiated efforts to address them. 

For further information, 

contact our public affairs office 

at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130924-13-P-0430.pdf 
 

 

 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

September 24, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Implementation Plan With Cost Sharing Methodology Needed for Region 8 

Senior Environmental Employee Work on Lead Risk Reduction 

Report No. 13-P-0430 

FROM:	 Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO:	 Shaun McGrath, Regional Administrator 

 Region 8 

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

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

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. 

In accordance with established audit-resolution procedures, EPA managers will make final 

determinations on matters in this report. 

Reasons for Review 

In November 2012, the EPA OIG received a hotline complaint on funds utilization for work done by 

Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) program grantees to address lead-based paint programs 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA Region 8 jointly implements TSCA 

lead-based paint programs in two offices with SEE assistance: 

 Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance (OPRA). 

 Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice (ECEJ). 

The complainant alleged that after Region 8 reorganized in 1995 and pulled enforcement and 

compliance work out of program offices like OPRA to form ECEJ, funding conduits for small, direct 

implementation programs (e.g., TSCA lead-based paint) remained in offices like OPRA. The 

complainant asserts that OPRA’s lead workload has decreased over time while ECEJ’s increased due 

to the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule in 2008. After preliminary fact finding on 

the merits of the complaint, we opened an assignment to determine the extent to which OPRA and 

ECEJ have work plans on agreed-to SEE activities and a methodology for SEE funding. This 

memorandum summarizes the results of our review. 

13-P-0430 1 
 

Background 

The SEE program provides an opportunity for retired and unemployed Americans age 55 and 

over to share their expertise in tasks that support a wide variety of environmental programs. 

EPA and other federal and state environmental offices fund cooperative agreements with national 

aging organizations that have been authorized by the Secretary of Labor. 

The EPA issued the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule (known as the “Lead RRP”) in 

April 2008. Under the rule, beginning April 22, 2010, firms performing renovation, repair and 

painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and kindergartens 

built before 1978 must be EPA- or state-certified and must use certified renovators who follow 

specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. To become certified renovators, 

individuals must take training from an EPA-accredited training provider. In order for a firm to be 

certified, an application must be submitted to EPA. 

The EPA Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Program Manager Guidance from the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention outline Lead RRP strategies for regional offices such as Region 8’s ECEJ and OPRA, 

respectively. Each national guidance document cross-references the other office, and each directs 

regional offices to coordinate with one another on Lead RRP activities. Funding for the RRP 

program also comes from these two EPA headquarters offices. OCSPP provides Agency Direct 

Implementation funds for efforts in all non-authorized states, tribes and territories (Region 8 

currently has five RRP non-authorized states). OECA provides funding for the region’s 

compliance monitoring activities (i.e., inspections and investigations). Both Region 8 ECEJ and 

OPRA utilize SEEs in implementing lead-risk reduction programs. OPRA receives the majority 

of the funding, allowing OPRA to fund full-time SEE grantees for a longer duration than ECEJ, 

as shown below: 

Table 1: Direct implementation funding for SEE grantees by Region 8 offices 

Account Balance* Funding Duration for One Full-Time SEE Grantee** 

ECEJ $208,555 $208,555 / $15,000 = 13.90 quarters 

OPRA $349,681 $349,681 / $15,000 = 23.31 quarters 

* Based on data as of October 1, 2012 (start of fiscal year 2013). 

**Assumes annual cost of SEE grantee of $60,000, or $15,000 quarterly. 

Source: OIG analysis of Region 8 SEE account balances for Lead RRP. 

Scope and Methodology 

We received the hotline complaint in November 2012 and performed our fieldwork in June and July 

2013. We did not conduct this limited scope review in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Specifically, we did not review internal controls related to the grant 

agreements the EPA has with authorized SEE career organizations. We also did not test controls 

related to the timekeeping system used by SEEs to verify Lead RRP tasks they may have conducted 

each day. To determine the extent to which OPRA and ECEJ have work plans on SEE activities and 

related funding, we interviewed staff and managers in each office and reviewed written materials 

each provided. We also interviewed the complainant, all SEEs conducting Lead RRP work in each 

office, and SEE employment organizations. We also reviewed each office’s FY 2013 National 

13-P-0430 2 
 

 

 

Program Manager Guidance documents on priorities for regional activities. We believe the work we 

conducted provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions in this report. 

Results of Review 

ECEJ and OPRA do not have an agreement on SEE activities or a methodology for sharing SEE 

funding, which has led to confusion about respective roles and tasks. For example, OPRA SEEs 

described work they do to review and process applications for RRP certification, but a ECEJ staff 

person understood that the EPA shifted administrative activities on certifications from regional 

program offices to headquarters (in its response to our draft report, the region concurred that 

headquarters assumed processing certification forms in August 2012). Thus, the ECEJ staff person 

understood OPRA to have little activity in this area, yet the funding has remained in OPRA. In 

contrast, the ECEJ staff person believes ECEJ’s workload has increased—without attendant 

funding—due to the Lead RRP rule in 2008. As a result of funding uncertainty, ECEJ cut its SEEs to 

part-time in May 2013. 

According to the complainant, ECEJ first raised concerns to OPRA in August 2011 about funds use. 

ECEJ and OPRA have corresponded or met over 20 times since then to discuss their respective leadrisk reduction activities, including SEE tasks. During those discussions, ECEJ suggested that the two 

offices establish a process to annually discuss projected allocations for lead to allow for mutual 

decision making to ensure adequate SEE funding for activities conducted. Partly due to our inquiry, 

OPRA has, in recent months, redistributed funding to ECEJ ($52,500 in April, and $46,904 and 

$4,276 in July). However, even though the two offices have recently discussed the importance of 

joint strategic planning, they have yet to reach a long-term agreement on SEE activities and related 

funding. 

A similar scenario occurred between ECEJ and another Region 8 office—Ecosystems Protection 

and Remediation—on shared workload related to the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program. 

In that situation, all funds for the program came to the Region 8 Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation office from headquarters through the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. However, the Ecosystems Protection and Remediation office was not able to do the 

Risk Management Program work because the region’s organization placed the bulk of 

responsibilities in ECEJ. This issue led to an OIG report that found that the two offices jointly 

responsible for program implementation did not effectively plan or coordinate their activities.1 

The OIG recommended that the Region 8 regional administrator develop (1) a strategy for 

implementing the Risk Management Program in Region 8 that defines program goals, 

performance measures, and organizational responsibilities; and (2) an oversight process to 

evaluate the region’s success in implementing the strategy. Region 8 agreed with the OIG’s 

findings and completed the recommended actions by the time the OIG published its report. The 

two offices developed an implementation strategy that redirected funding from the Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response (through the Ecosystems Protection and Remediation 

office) to ECEJ and realigned resources. We believe a similar approach by ECEJ and OPRA 

could improve the region’s management of the Lead RRP Program and lessen confusion among 

1 EPA Region 8 Needs to Better Manage the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases, 

Report No. 09-P-0130, issued March 30, 2009. 

13-P-0430 3 
 

regional staff responsible for implementation. In its response to our draft report, the region 

agreed that both offices should make sure there is clarity on roles and responsibilities. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the regional administrator, EPA Region 8: 

1.	 Develop a strategy for implementing the Lead RRP Program in Region 8 that defines 

program goals, performance measures, organizational responsibilities, and a methodology 

for SEE funding. 

2.	 Develop an oversight process to evaluate the region’s success in implementing the strategy. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

Region 8 agreed with our recommendations and has initiated efforts to address them. 

Specifically, the region’s response indicated that staff and managers from OPRA and ECEJ are 

working toward the development of a joint work plan by the beginning of FY 2014 that will lead 

to more effective management of our resources. The region said, “Such a work plan will include 

developing a methodology for allocating funding to activities and SEEs, planning/coordinating 

activities, and clarifying roles and responsibilities. Once the Plan is final, ECEJ and OPRA will 

monitor Lead Program implementation efforts semiannually through FY 2014.” We believe 

Region 8’s planned actions meet the intent of our recommendations. After receiving Region 8’s 

response, we conferred with the region to verify planned completion dates to address our 

recommendations and denoted dates in the status table on the next page. We included the 

region’s full response in appendix A. 

Action Required 

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you agreed to all 

recommendations and provided corrective actions and planned completion dates that meet the 

intent of our recommendations. The recommendations remain open with corrective actions 

ongoing. Please update the EPA’s Management Audit Tracking System as you complete the 

planned corrective actions for these recommendations and notify my staff if there is a significant 

change in the agreed-to corrective actions. We will post this report on our website at 

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

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Rich Eyermann, 

acting assistant inspector general for the Office of Audit, at (202) 566-0565 or 

Eyermann.Richard@epa.gov; or Patrick Gilbride, director for Risk and Program Performance 

Audits, at (303) 312-6969 or Gilbride.Patrick@epa.gov. 

13-P-0430 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 

2 

4 

4 

Develop a strategy for implementing the Lead RRP 

Program in Region 8 that defines program goals, 

performance measures, organizational 

responsibilities, and a methodology for SEE 

funding. 

Develop an oversight process to evaluate the 

region’s success in implementing the strategy. 

O 

O 

Regional Administrator, 

Region 8 

Regional Administrator, 

Region 8 

11/01/13 

10/01/14 

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 

13-P-0430 5 

1 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Agency Comments on Draft Report 

September 4, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Region 8 comments on OIG draft report titled "Implementation Plan with Cost 

Sharing Methodology Needed for Region 8 Senior Environmental Employee 

Work on Lead Risk Reduction" 

FROM: Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 8 

TO: Richard Eyermann, Acting Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft "Implementation Plan with 

Cost Sharing Methodology Needed for Region 8 Senior Environmental Employee Work on Lead 

Risk Reduction." The report focuses on Region 8's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting 

Program, which two offices within the Region implement: the Office of Enforcement, 

Compliance and Environmental Justice and the Office of Partnerships and Regulatory 

Assistance. The report makes recommendations on a regional strategy to implement the RRP 

Program and an oversight process to evaluate our success in implementing the strategy. 

Region 8 agrees with the recommendations as outlined in the draft report. Earlier this year, we 

initiated efforts which we are confident will address your recommendations. Staff and managers 

from both offices are working toward the development of a joint work plan by the beginning of 

FY2014 that will lead to more effective management of our resources. Such a work plan will 

include developing a methodology for allocating funding to activities and SEEs, 

planning/coordinating activities, and clarifying roles and responsibilities. 

Once the Plan is final, ECEJ and OPRA will monitor Lead Program implementation efforts 

semiannually through FY20 14 and report status to the Director of the Region 8, Grants, Audit 

and Procurement Program. If joint Office work plan development and implementation is 

successful through FY2014 further monitoring and reporting will no longer be required. Related 

to your draft report, we are also submitting the following comments to clarify certain aspects. 

ROLES 

ECEJ and OPRA are jointly responsible for implementing the Lead Program in Region 8. Your 

report indicates that "an absence of a methodology or agreement for sharing SEE funding has led 

to confusion about respective roles and responsibilities." While the responsibilities and functions 

of the two offices are stated in EPA Regional Orders (attached), we agree that the offices should 

make sure there is clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each office, especially in light of 

how the offices have addressed the RRP Program historically. 

13-P-0430 6 
 

The most recent regional order for ECEJ's Lead Program was issued on February 25, 2009. It 

states that ECEJ's Technical Enforcement Program is responsible for compliance monitoring, 

inspections, and enforcement for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) lead-based paint 

program. The most recent regional order for OPRA's Pollution Prevention and Toxics Program 

was issued on October 5, 2005. It defines OPRA's role as responsible for the regulatory and nonregulatory aspects of implementing TSCA including lead. The order states that this is 

accomplished primarily through collaborative support, technical assistance and outreach, grants, 

and capacity building. 

When the Lead RRP rule was passed in 2008, it increased the workload of both offices. Because 

OPRA's lead program was focused on required activities (certification, accreditation, regulatory 

interpretations, responding to inquiries, state authorizations, etc.), and fielding phone calls from 

potentially regulated entities, OPRA undertook minimal targeted compliance assistance, 

outreach, and education to the regulated community. During this timeframe, ECEJ undertook its 

own efforts to provide compliance assistance and outreach of the new Lead RRP rule. Due to the 

Program's maturity, and the fact that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(OCSPP) assumed responsibility for processing certification of forms beginning in August 2012, 

OPRA has more recently been focusing on targeted compliance assistance and outreach via 

partnership and wholesale "marketing." 

WORK PLANS 

Your report indicated that OPRA did not have a FY2013 work plan. OPRA drafted a work plan 

at the end ofFY2012 and shared it with ECEJ. Although that draft OPRAIECEJ work plan was 

not finalized due to on-going discussions of work plan activities with ECEJ, the OPRA Lead 

Program has been using that plan to guide its activities throughout FY2013. 

FUNDING 

Your report also stated that "OPRA receives the majority of the funding, allowing OPRA to fund 

fulltime SEE grantees for a longer duration than ECEJ." It is true that OPRA receives more lead 

funding from OCSPP than ECEJ from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance 

(OECA). In FY2009 and FY2010, OPRA received over $550,000 from OCSPP to support the 

new RRP Program creating a large surplus in the SSAI accounts for SEE charging. However, 

OPRA has been transferring funding to ECEJ's lead program since FY2012. OPRA was able to 

make these funds available to ECEJ primarily because OPRA had not been drawing its SEE 

account down due to reduced SEE staffing in previous years. This reduced level of drawdown is 

the main reason OPRA had a higher level of funding in its SEE account than ECEJ. (ECEJ had 

3.1 SEEs while OPRA has 2 SEEs). Thus, ECEJ's drawdown rate was greater than OPRA's 

drawdown rate. 

Your report also indicates that funds had only been transferred from OPRA to ECEJ recently in 

response to the OIG's inquiry. OPRA and ECEJ had initiated discussions in early FY2012 related 

to use of funds by the two Programs. As indicated above, in mid-2012 funds were transferred to 

ECEJ to support SEEs. Later, the two Programs continued to try to develop a methodology to 

allocate funds. Your inquiry in early FY20 13 served to invigorate the process of developing a 

sustainable framework to allocate funds and develop a more coordinated Region 8 Lead 

program. 

13-P-0430 7 
 

 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. If you have any 

questions or comments, please contact Callie Videtich, Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator 

(OPRA) at 303-312-6434. 

Attachments: EPA Order dated February 25, 2009 and EPA Order dated October 20, 2005 

13-P-0430 8 
 

 

13-P-0430 9 
 

 

13-P-0430 10 
 

 

13-P-0430 11 
 

 

13-P-0430 12 
 

Appendix B 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Regional Administrator, Region 8 

Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

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 Regional Administrator, Region 8 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 8 Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and 

Environmental Justice 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 8 Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance 

Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 8 Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance 

Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 8 Office of Partnerships and Regulatory 

Assistance 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 8 

13-P-0430 13