UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF 

### SEP 2 3 1997 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

### MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Results ofAssessment ofControls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites ReportNo. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 FROM: ElissaR. Karpf

# tFC:...,..,_./**~** Deputy Assistant Inspector General for External Audits TO: Timothy Fields, Jr. Acting Assistant Administrator

for Solid Waste and Emergency Response Attached is our assessment ofthe controls over disbursements and other activities related to emergencyremoval actions at methyl parathion sites. Our assessment indicates that Agency controls over several aspects ofthe removal process could be strengthened with clarification of existing guidance orwith the development ofadditional 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 ofpersonal property records, and

• the p9tential for increased costs and delays in completion ofresidential restorations.2

Also included are suggestions thatwe 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 maytake in response to our suggestions within the next 120 days. We appreciate the collaborative efforts ofthe Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response 

### inproviding us information and insightto facilitate ourreview. During our field visits, we spoke:; with many individuals who were very receptive to our observations and who expended considerable time and effortin protecting the health ofhundreds offamilies affected by the

. methyl parathion contamination. We commend the efforts putforth by the individuals who assisted us. We believe the way the Agency worked with.the Office oflnsj)ector General staffin discussing the problems and identifying solutions demonstrates a shared commitment to improve Agency

**o~tions** and protect government funds. Ifyou or your staff have any questions, please contact Dave Boyce, Audit Manager in our Dallas office, at (214) 665-6621. · AttachmentATTACHMENT



### .ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCYREMOVAL·

ACTIONS AT METHYL PARATHION SITES INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND Based on concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Agency's (Agency) program officials, we conducted an assessment ofcontrols over emergency removal actions at methyl parathion sites. The overall objective ofthe**assessm~nt** was to determine the adequacy and appropriateness ofAgency policies and procedures to perform emergency removal actions. In particular, we focused onthose policies and procedures which addressed sampling, relocation,.decontamination, #md restoration.

Methyl parathion is ahighly toxic pesticide registered for use on several agricultural crops and is restricted to outdoor use. 1bis type ofpesticide typically affects the capability ofthe 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 ofnatural sunlight, water, and biological actions, but does not readily degrade indoors. The Office ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) issued Directive 9360.3-12, dated August 12, 1993, which provided guidance on the use ofauthority 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 ofa release or threat ofrelease of

## ahazardous substance into the environment and only when such release or threat ofrelease poses a hazard topublic health or welfare orthe environment. Afinding ofimminent and substantial endangerment

.. ofapollutant 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 AssignmentNo. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069Assessment ofEmergency Removal Actions atMethyl Parathion Sites hundreds ofresidences might have been contaminated with methyl parathion. The Agency, using various resources, temporarily • relocated 869 residents, and decontaminated and·restored 233 homes. Removal actions atthe Lorain County site were completed inFebruary 1996, at a cost ofapproximately $18,500,000. Less 

### than ayear later, inNovember 1996, the State ofMississippi requested the Agency's assistance inresponding to a public health hazardposed by the illegal application ofmethyl parathion in homes andbusinesses in and around Jackson County, Mississippi. One month later, the State ofLouisianarequested assistance for response tomethyl parathion contamination inthe New Orleans area Based on the experiences ofLorain County, theAgency responded and 

### testedthe extent ofcontamination, relocated residents, and deContaminated and restored residences and some businesses. In May 1997, the State ofIllinois contactedthe Agency requesting assistance for response tomethyl parathion contamination inthe Chicago 

### area. The Agency is inthe process ofplanning its proposed actions for the Chicago site

.

.. The latest Office ofEmergency 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 ofInspector General (OIG) Office ofInvestigations (01) regarding allegations ofirregularities in some residents' relocation applications 

# m Mississippi and LQuisiana. Through Ol'sinvolvement and discussions with the Agency, we agreed to assistthe Agency by assessing the adequacy ofthe policies 

### andprocedures used by the {egions throughout the various aspects ofthe removal process.

2 Assignment No. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069

------------------------ - -·--

# .. Assessment ofEmergency Removal Aetions atMethyl**Parat~ion** Sites The removal process, which is generally initiated by calls from individuals to an established Pesticide Hotline, consists offour 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 ofresidents and decontamination ofthe 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 ofcontaminated**sinf~s;** and removal and installation ofreplacement 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 ofmethyl parathion found inresidences 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 ofsuch 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 ofEmergencyRemoval Actions atMethylParathion 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 inRegion 6; and (3) the Chicago, Illinois site inRegion 

### 5. We coordinated ourreview with OIG investigators already onsite inMississippi and Louisiana to avoid dupljcation ofeffort. We met with headquarters program officials·

### in OERR., and program officials in Regions 

## :4, 5, and 6; We made visits to the Jackson County andNew Orleans sites to meet with the on-scene coordinators (OSC), emergency response contractors (ERCS), and representatives from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (Corps). Additionally, we met with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry staffco-located with Region 6 and representatives from the Mississippi State Department ofHealth (MSDH), the Louisiana Office_ofPublic Health, and the Louisiana Department ofAgriculture and Forestry (LDAF).

. To facilitate our review, we obtained memorandums from the Agency's Office ofGeneral Counsel to verify the Agency's authority to conductthe removal actions. Also, we obtained a copy ofthe 

### EPA National OilandHazardous Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan (NCP); the 

### Uniform RelocationAssistance, · RealPropertyRegulations for Federal andFederallyAssisted Programs; aildEPA Guidance on Temporary RelocationsDuring SuperfundRemovalActions to assess relocation criteria. We reviewed files maintained at both the New Orleans and Jackson County sites to determine the effectiveness ofadministrative controls overrelocation benefits, reimbursement ofpersonal property, and health effects ofthe 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 ofthe adequacy ofthe 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 notnecessarily encompass all generally accepted government auditing standards. Alternately, we conducted this review 

### in accordance_.with the provisions ofOIG manual chapter 118, 

### Special**Assignm~nts.** 4 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 L**.---------------------------------~~.,~.~--~----~~~~----------**



### ... OBSERVATIONS 

### AND CONCLUSIONS

IMPLEMENTATION OFNEWTESTING PROCEDURES Assessment ofEmergency Removal Actions atMethylParathion Sites

Our assessment indicates thatthe Agency could strengthen controls over several aspects ofthe emergency removal process With the ciarification ofexisting guidance and 

### the development of additional specific national guidance. The lack ofadequate 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 inthe documentation ofpersonal property items, and

• the potential for increased costs and delays in completion ofresidential restorations. We discussed these concerns initially withheadquarters program officials in OERR, and again during recent task force conference calls. In response, the Agency has issued several new directives that address some ofthe areas ofconcern we have raised. However, we believe that further improvements would strengthen Agency controls and further reduce future instances offraudulent 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 ofmethyl parathion inresidents' urine. The intent ofthe directive was to ensure that the regions applied consistent criteria indeciding 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 atMethyl Parathion Sites

• reso\li'ces

**fo~** subsequent monitoring, and

• procedures for disclosure and notification of changes in residential occupancy. The Agency delegatedresponsibility for testing methyl parathion levels inresidents' urine to state public health agencies but did not initially ensure thatthese agencies had adequate resources to collecturine samples and perform subsequent monitoring. OSCs inRegions 4 and 

### 5, and representatives from MSDH and LOAF,· expressed concerns thatthe public health services inLouisiana, Mississippi, and Illinois lacked the reS«;lurces to effectively administerthe increased urine sampling and subsequent monitoring. They expressed further concerns thatthe Centerfor Disease Control in Atlantamight lackthe capacity to timely test the anticipatednumber ofsamples. 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 ofclear guidance and sufficient resources for sample collection, analysis, and monitoring hasthe · potential for reducing the effectiveness ofthe program as well as creating increased exposure and adverse health effects. We recently learnedthat the Agency, as suggested in this assessment, has worked with the appropriate state and local officials to gain the resources needed tomeetthe demands for urine sampling and analysis. Additionally, the development ofa long term monitoring and notification policy is still inprogress. Priorto May 1997, the Agency had no policy orguidance for making decisions to clean up businesses contaminated withmethyl parathion. Consequently, regions developed inconsistentpolicies regarding business cleanups. Region S did not clean up businesses atthe first site in Lorain County, Ohio. Region 4 initiated "' cleanups of24 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 atMethylParathion Sites This lack ofconsistency not only leftthe Agency vulnerable to criticism, but also resulted in the·use ofadditional 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 9285.7-27A, Cleanup of Methyl Parathion ContaminatedBusinesses (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 withresident population orresidential 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 withthe 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 othertypes ofexpenses (i.e., laundry, taxis). APplication Process The Corps at each site set its own application requirements. The Corps atthe 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 atthe Jackson County site, with assistance from Region 4 program officials, developed draftprocedures outlining
·. the application process and eligibility requirements, including

verification ofresidency 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. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069Assessment oCEmergeney Removal Actions atMethylParathion Sites security number, rental agreements, rent receipts,**~** returns, proof afpublic assistance, and/or mail.



### . . The Corps in New Orleans initially did not require any documents to verify residency orhousehold size. Based on a recommendation made by 01001, 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 otherimprovements inthe application process that wouldhelp theAgency protectitselfagainst abusers and fraudulent claims. The improvements included:

• a certification and false penalties statement;

• arequirement for applicant identification/verification for release · ofsubsistence payments;

• a medical release fonn; 

### and

• simpler, separately listed questions onthe questionnaire regarding source and application of methyl parathion. • 01 recently learned that Region 5is currently using contract services to develop its own application process for use by the Corps at the Chicago site. We understand from OI thatthe proposed application package does notrequire social security or drivers license numbers from applicants as recommended by 01 and implemented by the Corps inNew Orleans. The drafting ofan additional application package by Region 5 appears to be a duplication ofeffort and an unnecessary expenditure ofresources. 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 ofEmergency Removal Actions atMethylParathion Sites lodging rates. The rates .varied between sites and were not based on any specific standard. The process followed in Jackson County evolvedfrom 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 ofmoney based on the average daily cost ofa 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 ofcalculation was based on the applicant making his orhC?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, insufficientresident 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 ofdocumentation maintained by the regions to identify personal property items. The regions used various contractors orthe 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 RemovalActions, dated September 1996, outlines the procedures for compensating for property loss due to hazardous substance release orthe resulting response effort. The guidance requires the OSC to record the condition ofany property 9 AssignmentNo. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069, RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCES 

### .. Assessment ofEmergency Removal

Actions at MethylParathion Sites that potentially could be-damaged during response activities. Documentationmust be in writing, and may be supplemented with photographs and videotapes. This**docwnentatio~** would be used 

# a as a basis to detennine appropriate compensation afterthe response was complete. The quality and sufficiency ofpersonal property documentation varied at the different sites. Personal· property records maintained atthe New Orleans site included a combination ofdetailed 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 ofspecific**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 outweighthe benefit**derived~** Residential restoration atthe New Orleans site using Region 6•s ERCS contracts proceeded more timely than restoration atthe Jackson County site using Region 4•s interagency agreement with the Corps. For comparative pmposes, the**l~test** OERRMethyl Parathion Response Status report, dated July 25, 1997, statedthat ofthe 430 households requiring relocation in Mississippi, only 75 cleanup/restorations were**completed~** Louisiana, with cleanups initiated approximately 1month afterthe stm:t ofcleanups in Mississippi, reported 187 households requiring relocation, with 182 cleanup/restorations completed. The delays encountered in Jackson County were primarily attributed to the lengthy procurementprocess followed bythe Corps. Initially, the**Corp~** issued individual purchase orders for the restoration ofeachresidence. To alleviate the delays and "" backlog, the Corps recently issued an indefinite delivery/indefinite

quantity contract which provided for the issuance ofwork orders to three contractors 

### to coverthe restoration ofnumerous residences.

10 AssigmnentNo. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069 

### ·"



### •SUMMARY

SUGGESTIONS

• Assessment ofEmergency Removal Aetions atMethylParathion Sites
Inthe interim, Region 4 also issued work orders under its ERCS contracts to assist withthe 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 supportbeyond the Corps.

The lack ofclear and concise national guidance resulted inregions developing their ownprocedures. Regional responses could have proceeded more efficiently and with less risk to the government, had the Agency developed clear and concisenational guidance.

We suggest thatthe Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response: 1. Modify existing guidance and develop new guidance, as required, to address emergency removal actions atmethyl parathion sites that at a minimum:

a. Clarifies important factors related to its protocol for testing levels ofmethyl parathion inresidents' 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 ofresidency and household size, as well as a standard for computing subsistence payments. The Agency should consider providing standard application forms for use bythe Corps or other servicing agents. 

### d. Defines a standard for sufficient documentation of personal property items

.

11 AssignmentNo. ElSFB7-06-0020-7400069

### 2.

: ' Assessment ofEmergency Removal Actions atMethyl Parathion Sites 

### Encourage Region 

### 5to work with the Office ofAcquisition Managementto 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 

# •

•