UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

SEP 2 3 1997 OFFICE OF 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Results of Assessment of Controls Over Emergency 

Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

Report No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 

FROM: Elissa 

Deputy 

R. 

Assistant 

Karpf tFC:... 

Inspector 

,..,_. 

General 

/ ~ 

for External Audits 

TO: Timothy Fields, Jr. 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Attached is our assessment of the controls over disbursements and other activities related 

to emergency removal actions at methyl parathion sites. Our assessment indicates that Agency 

controls over several aspects of the removal process could be strengthened with clarification of 

existing guidance or with the development of additional national guidance. The attached 

discussion focuses on: 

• · the potential for inadequate resources and procedures for implementing a new 

sampling approach, 

• inconsistencies in decisions to conduct cleanups at businesses, 

• the potential for fraudulent and excessive relocation costs, 

• inconsistencies in docwnentation of personal property records, and 

• the p9tential for increased costs and delays in completion of residential 

restorations. 
2 

Also included are suggestions that we believe will provide greater consistency and 

strengthen the Agency's controls in future similar emergency responses. We look forward to 

receiving written comments with prop<)sed actions that your office may take in response to our 

suggestions within the next 120 days. 

We appreciate the collaborative efforts of the Office of Emergency and Remedial 

Response in providing us information and insight to facilitate our review. During our field visits, 

we spoke:; with many individuals who were very receptive to our observations and who expended 

considerable time and effort in protecting the health of hundreds of families affected by the . 

methyl parathion contamination. We commend the efforts put forth by the individuals who 

assisted us. We believe the way the Agency worked with. the Office oflnsj)ector General staff in 

discussing the problems and identifying solutions demonstrates a shared commitment to improve 

Agency o~tions and protect government funds. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Dave Boyce, Audit Manager in 

our Dallas office, at (214) 665-6621. · 

Attachment 
ATTACHMENT 

. ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY REMOVAL· 

ACTIONS AT METHYL PARATHION SITES 

INTRODUCTION 

BACKGROUND 

Based on concerns raised by the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (Agency) program officials, we conducted an assessment 

of controls over emergency removal actions at methyl parathion 

sites. The overall objective of the assessm~nt was to determine the 

adequacy and appropriateness of Agency policies and procedures 

to perform emergency removal actions. In particular, we focused 

on those policies and procedures which addressed sampling, 

relocation,. decontamination, #md restoration. 

Methyl parathion is a highly toxic pesticide registered for use on 

several agricultural crops and is restricted to outdoor use. 1bis 

type of pesticide typically affects the capability of the human 

central nervous system to regulate itself. Exposure, which may 

occur through contact, inhalation, or ingestion, can cause serious 

illness and even death. Methyl parathion readily breaks.down in 

the environment through a combination of natural sunlight, water, 

and biological actions, but does not readily degrade indoors. 

The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

issued Directive 9360.3-12, dated August 12, 1993, which 

provided guidance on the use of authority under section 104 (a) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to conduct indoor response 

actions such as the methyl parathion emergency. Ibis directive 

clarifies that CERCLA section 104 authority should be used only 

in instances of a release or threat of release of a hazardous 

substance into the environment and only when such release or 

threat of release poses a hazard to public health or welfare or the 

environment. A finding of imminent and substantial endangerment 

.. of a pollutant or contaminant must also exist. 

The Agency's initial involvement with methyl parathion 

contamination in residences was in Lorain County, Ohio, in 

December 1994. Ohio health officials alerted the Agency that 

I Assignment No. El SFB7-06-0020-7400069 
Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

hundreds of residences might have been contaminated with methyl 

parathion. The Agency, using various resources, temporarily • 

relocated 869 residents, and decontaminated and·restored 233 

homes. Removal actions at the Lorain County site were completed 

in February 1996, at a cost of approximately $18,500,000. 

Less than a year later, in November 1996, the State of Mississippi 

requested the Agency's assistance in responding to a public health 

hazard posed by the illegal application of methyl parathion in 

homes and businesses in and around Jackson County, Mississippi. 

One month later, the State of Louisiana requested assistance for 

response to methyl parathion contamination in the New Orleans 

area Based on the experiences of Lorain County, the Agency 

responded and tested the extent of contamination, relocated 

residents, and deContaminated and restored residences and some 

businesses. 

In May 1997, the State of Illinois contacted the Agency requesting 

assistance for response to methyl parathion contamination in the 

Chicago area. The Agency is in the process of planning its 

proposed actions for the Chicago site . 

.. 

The latest Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) 

Methyl Parathion Response Status report, dated September 5, 

1997, shows costs obligated for removal actions at each state as 

follows: · 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Illinois 

$36,050,000 

$17,800,000 

$ 5,500,000 

In January 1997, Regions 4 and 6 contacted the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) Office of Investigations (01) regarding allegations 

of irregularities in some residents' relocation applications m 

Mississippi and LQuisiana. Through Ol's involvement and 

discussions with the Agency, we agreed to assist the Agency by 

assessing the adequacy of the policies and procedures used by the 

{egions throughout the various aspects of the removal process. 

2 Assignment No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 

------------------------ - -·--
.. 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Aetions at Methyl Parat~ion Sites 

The removal process, which is generally initiated by calls from 

individuals to an established Pesticide Hotline, consists of four 

phases: 

• sampling, 

• resident relocation, 

• deconUUEdnation,and 

• restoration. 

A state agency collects wipe samples from high contact/high traffic 

areas in a residence or business. Such areas are locations with an 

increased probability for repeatCd and prolonged kuman contact 

with the potentially contaminated surface. A designated laboratory 

then analyzes the samples for methyl parathion. Residents were 

originally relocated based on health criteria developed and used by 

the Agency in Lorain County, Ohio. Rapid relocation of residents 

and decontamination of the residence occurred if methyl parathion 

·from a wipe sample. equaled or exceeded a certain level. The 

decontamination and restoration procedures involve the removal of 

contaminated -food and fabric items; painting of contaminated 

sinf~s; and removal and installation of replacement carpeting, 

baseboards, furnace filters, cabinets, furnishings, and non· 

structural building components which remain .contaminated. 

In May 1997, the Agency changed its criteria for relocating 

residents and decontaminating residences. The change resulted 

from a determination made by the Methyl Parathion Health 

Sciences Steering Committee that scientific relationships between 

levels of methyl parathion found in residences and levels found in 

urine samples taken from residents were not found to exist in other 

geographic locations as existed in Lorain, Ohio. The differences 

were attributed to site-specific circumstances, such as spray 

technique, house construction, and climate factors. In the absence 

of such site·specific correlations, the steering committee 

determined that methyl parathion levels in urine should become the 

prime detenninant for relocating residents to decontaminate 

residences. 

3 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-002Q-7400069 

:r ... : "" 
SCOPE AND 

METHODOLOGY 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

Our-review focused on the ongoing and proposed removal actions 

at three primary sites: (1) the Jackson County, Mississippi site in 

Region 4; (2) the New Orleans, Louisiana site in Region 6; and (3) 

the Chicago, Illinois site in Region 5. We coordinated our review 

with OIG investigators already onsite in Mississippi and Louisiana 

to avoid dupljcation of effort. We met with headquarters program 

officials· in OERR., and program officials in Regions :4, 5, and 6; 

We made visits to the Jackson County and New Orleans sites to 

meet with the on-scene coordinators (OSC), emergency response 

contractors (ERCS), and representatives from the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (Corps). Additionally, we met with the Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry staff co-located with 

Region 6 and representatives from the Mississippi State 

Department ofHealth (MSDH), the Louisiana Office_ of Public 

Health, and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

(LDAF). . 

To facilitate our review, we obtained memorandums from the 

Agency's Office of General Counsel to verify the Agency's 

authority to conduct the removal actions. Also, we obtained a 

copy of the EPA National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan ( NCP); the Uniform Relocation Assistance, · 

Real Property Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted 

Programs; aild EPA Guidance on Temporary Relocations During 

Superfund Removal Actions to assess relocation criteria. We 

reviewed files maintained at both the New Orleans and Jackson 

County sites to determine the effectiveness of administrative 

controls over relocation benefits, reimbursement of personal 

property, and health effects of the methyl parathion spraying. 

This review, like all special reviews, was a short term study of 

Agency activities. It was not designed to be a detailed audit. 

Rather it was an information gathering survey that.sought to assist 

the Agency by providing an assessment of the adequacy of the 

policies and procedures being followed for removal actions at 

~ methyl parathion sites. Thus, it was more lil:irlted in scope than an 

audit and, as such, did not necessarily encompass all generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Alternately, we 

conducted this review in accordance_. with the provisions of OIG 

manual chapter 118, Special Assignm~nts. 

4 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 

L 
.---------------------------------~~.,~.~--~----~~~~----------

... 

OBSERVATIONS 

AND 

CONCLUSIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

OF NEW TESTING 

PROCEDURES 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

Our assessment indicates that the Agency could strengthen 

controls over several aspects of the emergency removal process 

With the ciarification of existing guidance and the development of 

additional specific national guidance. The lack of adequate 

national guidance has resulted in: 

• the potential for inadequate resources and 

procedures for implementing a new sampling 

approach, · 

• inconsistencies in decisions to clean up 

contaminated businesses, 

• the potential for fraudulent and excessive relocation 

costs, 

• inoonsistencies in the documentation of personal 

property items, and 

• the potential for increased costs and delays in 

completion of residential restorations. 

We discussed these concerns initially with headquarters program 

officials in OERR, and again during recent task force conference 

calls. In response, the Agency has issued several new directives 

that address some of the areas of concern we have raised. 

However, we believe that further improvements would strengthen 

Agency controls and further reduce future instances of fraudulent 

activities related to methyl parathion cleanups. 

On May 16, 1997, OSWER issued Directive 9285.7-27 w.hich 

provides guidance to the regions for implementing a urine 

sampling protocol to test for excessive levels of methyl parathion 

in residents' urine. The intent of the directive was to ensure that 

the regions applied consistent criteria in deciding what actions to 

take in response to methyl parathion exposures . 

.. In implementing the urine sampling protocol, the Agency did not 

adequately address: 

• resources to collect and analyze the samples, 

5 AssigmnentNo. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 

:.:....l.. '---·~· ·,,:. 
CLEANUP OF 

CONTAMINATED 

BUSINESSES 

Assessment ofEmergeney Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

• reso\li'ces fo~ subsequent monitoring, and 

• procedures for disclosure and notification of 

changes in residential occupancy. 

The Agency delegated responsibility for testing methyl parathion 

levels in residents' urine to state public health agencies but did not 

initially ensure that these agencies had adequate resources to 

collect urine samples and perform subsequent monitoring. OSCs 

in Regions 4 and 5, and representatives from MSDH and LOAF,· 

expressed concerns that the public health services in Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Illinois lacked the reS«;lurces to effectively 

administer the increased urine sampling and subsequent 

monitoring. They expressed further concerns that the Center for 

Disease Control in Atlanta might lack the capacity to timely test 

the anticipated number of samples. 

Additionally, the new protocol did not address the issue of 

disclosure and notification when changes in residential occupancy 

occur. This notification and the associated need for subsequent 

urine sampling might be critical for new. occupants, especially 

those with Small children. A lack of clear guidance and sufficient 

resources for sample collection, analysis, and monitoring has the · 

potential for reducing the effectiveness of the program as well as 

creating increased exposure and adverse health effects. 

We recently learned that the Agency, as suggested in this 

assessment, has worked with the appropriate state and local 

officials to gain the resources needed to meet the demands for 

urine sampling and analysis. Additionally, the development of a 

long term monitoring and notification policy is still in progress. 

Prior to May 1997, the Agency had no policy or guidance for 

making decisions to clean up businesses contaminated with methyl 

parathion. Consequently, regions developed inconsistent policies 

regarding business cleanups. Region S did not clean up businesses 

at the first site in Lorain County, Ohio. Region 4 initiated 

"' cleanups of 24 businesses, including restaurants, stores, day care 

centers, and churches. Region 6 initiated one business cleanup, 

then discontinued the practice. 

6 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 
' 

• 

RELOCATION 

COSTS 

.•.. ··' 

Assessment.ofEmergency Removal 

Aetions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

This lack of consistency not only left the Agency vulnerable to 

criticism, but also resulted in the· use of additional funds and 

resoW'Ces for removal actions at sites that are unlikely to cause 

continuous exposure to methyl parathion. The funds and resources 

could have otherwise been available for removal actions at higher 

priority sites with continuous exposure. 

The recently issued OSWER Directive 9285.7-27 A, Cleanup of 

Methyl Parathion Contaminated Businesses (undated) provides 

guidance to the regions in making cleanup decisions regaiding 

businesses contaminated with methyl parathion. The guidance 

provides that decisions should be based on the urine protocol 

criteria, especially those with resident population or residential 

type exposure; i.e., nursing homes, day care centers, or hospitals. 

Consideration should also be given to the businesses' ability to 

pay. 

The Agency was not consistent in its application process for 

resident relocation eligibility or subsistence payments made to 

relocated residents. These inconsistencies provided the potential 

for fraudulent and excessive relocation costs. At both the Jackson 

County and New Orleans sites, the Corps, through an interagency 

agreement with the Agency, was responsible for processing 

applications for resident relocation and making subsistence 

payments. Corps personnel at each site established their own 

application process, as well as the subsistence rates and other types 

of expenses (i.e., laundry, taxis). 

APplication Process 

The Corps at each site set its own application requirements. The 

Corps at the Jackson County site used a detailed application 

process, including resident identification and household size 

verification. The Corps in New Orleans initially required no 

identification or verification from its applicants. 

The Corps at the Jackson County site, with assistance from 

Region 4 program officials, developed draft procedures outlining 

·. the application process and eligibility requirements, including 

verification of residency and household size. To substantiate their 

eligibility, applicants could submit various documents to verify 

residency and household size, including drivers license, social 

7 Assigrmient No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 
Assessment oCEmergeney Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

security number, rental agreements, rent receipts, ~ returns, proof 

af public assistance, and/or mail. 

. . The Corps in New Orleans initially did not require any documents 

to verify residency or household size. Based on a recommendation 

made by 010 01, the Corps subsequently began requesting social 

security and drivers license numbers from its applicants. However, 

the Corps did not verify household size. 

Additionally, OI suggested other improvements in the application 

process that would help the Agency protect itself against abusers 

and fraudulent claims. The improvements included: 

• a certification and false penalties statement; 

• a requirement for applicant 

identification/verification for release · 

of subsistence payments; 

• a medical release fonn; and 

• simpler, separately listed questions on the 

questionnaire regarding source and application of 

methyl parathion. • 

01 recently learned that Region 5 is currently using contract 

services to develop its own application process for use by the 

Corps at the Chicago site. We understand from OI that the 

proposed application package does not require social security or 

drivers license numbers from applicants as recommended by 01 

and implemented by the Corps in New Orleans. The drafting of an 

additional application package by Region 5 appears to be a 

duplication of effort and an unnecessary expenditure of resources. 

A standard application package for use by all ·regions could have 

prevented the inconsistencies and reduced the potential for 

fraudulent or excessive claims. 

Subsistence Costs 

The Corps also independently determined subsistence payments at 

the Jackson County and New Orleans sites. Corps personnel at 

each site used different approaches for determining per diem and 

8 Assignment No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 
• 

• 

DOCUMENTATION 

OF PERSONAL 

PROPERTY 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

lodging rates. The rates .varied between sites and were not based 

on any specific standard. 

The process followed in Jackson County evolved from the General 

Services Administration (GSA)-approved daily subsistence rates to 

a method which based subsistence payments on three options. For 

Option 1, the applicant could elect to stay in government-furnished 

apartments, and receive a one-time incidental expense allowance 

of$200. With Option 2, the applicant made his or her own 

arrangements and accepted a fixed amount of money based on the 

average daily cost of a one, two, or three bedroom apartment, and a 

one-time incidental expense allowance of$200. With Option'3, 

the applicant made his or her own ~gements and requested 

reimbursement on an actual basis, not to exceed a set amount per 

day. 

The process in New Orleans also evolved from GSA-approved 

daily subsistence rates. However, the method of calculation was 

based on the applicant making his or hC?r own arrangements and 

accepting a fixed amount of $15 per day per household, with no 

incidental expense allowance. 

Regi~n 5 is currently determining its own method for calculating 

subsistence payments. 

Overall, insufficient resident verification procedures and variances 

in subsistence payments, not only leaves the Agency open to 

criticism, but also results in inequitable and potentially fraudulent 

payments. 

We found inconsistencies in the degree of documentation 

maintained by the regions to identify personal property items. The 

regions used various contractors or the Corps to appraise and 

document personal property for removal and replacement 

purposes. Each servicing agent developed its own documentation 

requirements for personal property records. 

Draft OSWER Publication 9360.3-18, Guidance on Compensation 

~for Property Loss in Removal Actions, dated September 1996, 

outlines the procedures for compensating for property loss due to 

hazardous substance release or the resulting response effort. The 

guidance requires the OSC to record the condition of any property 

9 Assignment No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 
, RESTORATION OF 

INDIVIDUAL 

RESIDENCES 

.. 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

that potentially could be-damaged during response activities. 

Documentation must be in writing, and may be supplemented with 

photographs and videotapes. This docwnentatio~ would be used a 

as a basis to detennine appropriate compensation after the response 

was complete. 

The quality and sufficiency of personal property documentation 

varied at the different sites. Personal· property records maintained 

at the New Orleans site included a combination of detailed 

videotapes and photographs (also available on CD ROM). They 

also included specific property descgptions and detailed appraisals 

on contaminated reimbursable items. In contrast, files maintained 

at the Jackson County site were not as specific. The files included 

videotapes and some photographs but included more generic 

descriptions and appraisal values for contaminated reimbursable 

items. 

The lack of specific d~ could expose the Agency to fraudulent 

claims and additional expenses should residents dispute 

reimbursements and/or claim items as missing or damaged. At the 

same time, too much documentation could result in unnecessary 

expenditures that outweigh the benefit derived~ 

Residential restoration at the New Orleans site using Region 6•s 

ERCS contracts proceeded more timely than restoration at the 

Jackson County site using Region 4•s interagency agreement with 

the Corps. For comparative pmposes, the l~test OERR Methyl 

Parathion Response Status report, dated July 25, 1997, stated that 

of the 430 households requiring relocation in Mississippi, only 75 

cleanup/restorations were completed~ Louisiana, with cleanups 

initiated approximately 1 month after the stm:t of cleanups in 

Mississippi, reported 187 households requiring relocation, with 

182 cleanup/restorations completed. 

The delays encountered in Jackson County were primarily 

attributed to the lengthy procurement process followed by the 

Corps. Initially, the Corp~ issued individual purchase orders for 

the restoration of each residence. To alleviate the delays and 

"" backlog, the Corps recently issued an indefinite delivery/indefinite 

quantity contract which provided for the issuance of work orders to 

three contractors to cover the restoration of numerous residences. 

10 Assigmnent No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 

·" 

• 
SUMMARY 

SUGGESTIONS 

• 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Aetions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

In the interim, Region 4 also issued work orders under its ERCS 

contracts to assist with the restoration work in Jackson County. 

Region S, also proposing to use the Corps for restoration at the 

Chicago site, has expressed concerns regarding funding and . 

capacity available under its ERCS contracts should the Region 

need to obtain additional restoration support beyond the Corps. 

The lack of clear and concise national guidance resulted in regions 

developing their own procedures. Regional responses could have 

proceeded more efficiently and with less risk to the government, 

had the Agency developed clear and concise national guidance. 

We suggest that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response: 

1. Modify existing guidance and develop new guidance, as 

required, to address emergency removal actions at methyl 

parathion sites that at a minimum: 

a. Clarifies important factors related to its protocol for 

testing levels of methyl parathion in residents' 

urine, including resources for urine sampling and 

monitoring, and disclosure and notification 

requirements for resident occupancy changes. 

b. Outlines criteria for business cleanups, including 

specific eligible expenditures. 

c. Outlines applicant eligibility_procedures, including 

verification of residency and household size, as well 

as a standard for computing subsistence payments. 

The Agency should consider providing standard 

application forms for use by the Corps or other 

servicing agents. 

d. Defines a standard for sufficient documentation of 

personal property items . 

11 Assignment No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 
2. 

: ' 

Assessment of Emergency Removal 

Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites 

Encourage Region 5 to work with the Office of Acquisition 

Management to explore other contracting alternatives to 

obtain services in a timely manner, if delays are 

encountered and additional resources from the ERCS 

contracts are required. 

12 Assignment No. EISFB7-06-0020-7400069 

• 

•