Podcast: EPA OIG’s IIJA Oversight Plan

Kim: Hello. And welcome to another podcast from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General, where we take you inside the critical oversight work of the OIG. I’m Kim Wheeler, the OIG’s Director of External Outreach and Communications, and your host for the day.  

In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the IIJA, appropriated over $60 billion to the EPA for water infrastructure improvements, pollution clean-up, clean energy initiatives, and more. Since the OIG is responsible for overseeing how the Agency uses this money, this legislation created not only an unprecedented investment in EPA programs but also one of the most ambitious oversight efforts in our office’s history.

Fast forward to June 2025, and the OIG is issuing its new IIJA Oversight Plan—Year Four, which outlines the planned and ongoing IIJA projects we have in the works. These projects build on the momentum of more than three years of oversight that have helped the Agency to fortify its internal controls and ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of IIJA programs. Here to walk us through some of the improvements we’ve made in the EPA’s IIJA operations since we began this journey is Kate Robinson, our Senior Advisor for IIJA Oversight. Welcome, Kate. 

Kate: Thank you, Kim. I’m glad to be here. 

Kim: Let’s start with a little bit of background on you. What exactly does a Senior Advisor for IIJA Oversight do?

Kate: So, my role was created to bring strategic focus to one of the most significant tasks that the OIG has ever undertaken—overseeing the implementation of the IIJA. So, the IIJA provided the Agency more funding than it’s ever managed before—tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for things like clean water, lead service line replacement, clean school buses, Superfund cleanups, and more. So, my job is to coordinate across our audit, evaluation, and investigation offices and with external stakeholders to make sure that the OIG is taking an informed but proactive approach to overseeing that money. So, we’re looking for risk early, we’re recommending improvements, and we’re making sure that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and effectively. Our teams have been doing a phenomenal job carrying out our oversight responsibilities of these IIJA funds.

Kim: Okay. With that much money in motion, there’s a lot at stake. 

Kate: Absolutely! This is a big priority for the OIG. We’re talking about a massive investment—$60 billion across dozens of programs. This is on top of the Agency’s annual appropriations and core operations. So, when you have this level of funding, and it’s moving quickly, the risk of mismanagement, inefficiency, or loss really increases. So, we provide objective, independent oversight to ensure that the EPA operates effectively, that programs are on track, and that communities actually benefit from these investments.

Kim: Thanks, Kate. So, let’s dig into some of the improvements the OIG has helped drive in the Agency’s IIJA work. One of the programs that really stood out to me was the Clean School Bus Program. 

Kate: Oh, yeah—this program has gotten a lot of attention. And for good reason—it’s a $5 billion initiative to replace diesel school buses with clean and zero-emission buses. So, early on we flagged concerns with this program. We emphasized the need for strong internal controls and diligent monitoring of the fund recipients but, unfortunately, those warnings were not heeded. 

In December, we issued a report on the EPA’s 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate Program, which awarded $836 million in rebates to school districts around the country. We found that once those funds were awarded, the EPA didn’t monitor how they were used. So, the Agency didn’t conduct site reviews or request deployment status or issue guidance to rebate recipients on how to manage the funds that they’d received. So, without tracking, the Agency couldn’t confidently say how those buses were being deployed or whether the funds were used efficiently. Our financial statement audit found additional issues with the program and identified that most of the rebate payments were recorded as expenses instead of advances, and, ultimately, you know, weak controls were in place to record program funds. 

Kim: Wow! Almost a billion dollars and it wasn’t being monitored?

Kate: We were definitely concerned. But the good news is that, whenever we identify an issue, we issue a recommendation to help the Agency address it. So, ultimately, our audits led to significant improvements in how the EPA manages the rebate funding opportunities. In response to our recommendations, the EPA did agree to develop and implement guidance for staff on reviewing the recipient rebate’s use and management of those funds and to establish clear guidelines to adhere to when they manage those funds. The Agency now requires the recipients to provide semiannual progress reports, and those reports should show how they’ve used their funding and what they’ve accomplished. The Agency also started performing audits of rebate recipients to make sure that those projects comply with the program guidance that they’re issuing. So, these oversight improvements should help reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse of the $5 billion the IIJA provided for the clean school buses.

Kim: That’s a recurring theme in oversight from the EPA OIG, isn’t it—funds getting out the door, but follow-up and monitoring processes not keeping pace?

Kate: Unfortunately, that’s something we have highlighted in our reports for years. Another common and longstanding challenge we have seen in EPA—and now in IIJA programs—is data reliability. So, last fall, we issued multiple reports that identified concerns regarding EPA data. For example, one of our reports we found that some states’ Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds were collecting and storing the subrecipient and the contractor data in unstructured or nonmachine-readable formats. 

Kim: Why is that so concerning?

Kate: It may not seem like that big of a deal, but data that isn’t collected or stored in a structured database or in a machine-readable format can be difficult to access and it can significantly inhibit the ability to use data analytics for proactive oversight.  

Kim:  Interesting. Yeah. So, what other data issues have you found?

Kate: Well, in another report, we highlighted serious concerns about data that the EPA used to allocate nearly $3 billion in fiscal year '23 IIJA funding to states for lead service line replacement. The EPA had solicited data from states, tribes, and territories to determine how many lead service lines each state had and then they doled out the IIJA funds based on those numbers. But we discovered that EPA didn’t verify the data and they didn’t require documentation to support the numbers that were reported. When we looked at the information provided by just two states, we identified that flawed data that led to nearly $1 billion in questioned allotments, which means that the money may not be going where it was needed the most. 

Kim: So, inaccurate data actually shifted the balance of where these funds went?

Kate: Absolutely. To that point, because of our report, the EPA sent deobligation notices to Texas for over $88 million and also to Florida for more than $226 million. The Agency also determined that Florida could only apply for and receive $28.6 million for fiscal year ‘24—that’s more than $200 million less than it had originally allotted. So, the EPA decided to use more reliable data for fiscal years ‘25 and ‘26, which means that roughly $400 million that we had identified as funds that could be put to better use will be distributed more appropriately. So, overall, with these changes, IIJA funding for lead service line replacement funds are really more likely to go to states that have a higher need for the money.

Kim: Another high-dollar impact! Those all seem like great steps to take. So, the OIG has also looked at Superfund sites—how did IIJA funds factor in there?

Kate: The IIJA provided a much-needed boost for Superfund cleanups. About $3.5 billion was invested in environmental remediation which allowed the EPA to fund cleanups at dozens of sites. But our site visit inspections at a few Superfund locations did reveal some concerns for us. So, for instance, at the Escambia Wood Superfund site in Florida, our team found that physical access controls, which are things like fencing and visible signs, those were in poor condition or missing. And the site’s institutional controls, which should prohibit residential or recreational use of the land, weren’t being enforced. As a result, there were clear signs of trespassing and even encampments of homeless people at the site, putting those individuals at risk of potential exposure to contaminated soil. Poor oversight of controls at the site created concerns for us about the protectiveness of the long-term cleanup that the Agency’s has already spent $140 million to execute, as well as an additional $40 million in IIJA funding the EPA has set aside for planned groundwater remediation . 

Kim: That’s such a clear example of how oversight doesn’t end when the check is written. 

Kate: Exactly. As a result of our recommendations, the EPA swiftly addressed the deficiencies at the site and they ensured that the folks that were encamped there were moved from the unsafe property. So, effective cleanup includes long-term planning and coordination with state and local partners. That’s why we’re not just looking at what’s already happened, but also flagging gaps or risks that can impact the programs for years down the line.  So, this is critical so to ensure effective use of funds.

Kim: So, overall, it sounds like the OIG’s IIJA oversight work has already helped the Agency make several important improvements that will have a lasting impact. So, how is the OIG planning to move keep that momentum going?

Kate: That’s a great question! And one I think you’ll find the answer to in our new Year Four IIJA Oversight Plan. We’re nearly four years in, but we’re really just getting started. Our plan for this fiscal year includes 8 planned and over 15 ongoing IIJA projects looking at important topics like grants management, risk mitigation, data accuracy, and project implementation. On top of that, we’re also continuing our outreach with Agency employees, funding recipients, and other stakeholders. So, for us, prevention is key in all our oversight work. We’re very committed to providing the EPA with condensed lessons from our prior oversight work, to educating stakeholders about best practices for safeguarding funding, how to identify potential fraud indicators, and also what to do if they spot potential fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Kim: Well, Kate, we are about out of time. With more than 30 IIJA reports to choose from, we were only able to scratch the surface here. But I hope our listeners will have a chance to take a look at the Oversight Plan and as well as our Year Three Progress Report that’s also posted on our website. But before we go, if you had to sum it up, what’s the biggest takeaway from the OIG’s IIJA work so far?

Kate: I think it’s this: big investments of taxpayer dollars require big accountability and oversight. The EPA has an opportunity to deliver real benefits to communities with these IIJA funds—and strong, objective oversight is essential to help them ensure that these programs and operations are running economically, efficiently, and effectively. That’s oversight that the OIG  provides, and we are committed to doing just that. 

Kim: Great. Thank you for giving us such a clear look into this important work. We appreciate your time. 

Kate: Thanks, Kim. I’m proud of the work that the OIG is doing, and I am grateful for the chance to share it with you and with our listeners. 

Kim: And for our listeners, you can learn more about our IIJA oversight and access all of our reports and plans at our IIJA oversight page located on our website, which is www.epaoig.gov. Thanks for listening, and we’ll see you next time.