j
\
1
<•<*
°
.0*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
EPA Assisting Tribal Water
Systems but Needs to Improve
Oversight
Report No. 08-P-0266
September 16, 2008
-------
Report Contributors:
Ira Brass
Anthony Chirigotis
Jill Ferguson
Tim Roach
Danielle Tesch
Abbreviations
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWS Community Water System
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HAAS Haloacetic Acids
lOCs Inorganic Chemicals
MBCI Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MSDH Mississippi State Department of Health
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OIG Office of Inspector General
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SOCs Synthetic Organic Chemicals
TTHM Total Trihalomethanes
VOCs Volatile Organic Chemicals
Cover photo: Nano-filtration system and water system pipes at tribal drinking water facility
(EPA OIG photos).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
08-P-0266
September 16, 2008
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this evaluation
to assess the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) oversight
and assistance of tribal
community water systems
(CWSs), and to independently
evaluate water quality at
selected drinking water
systems.
Background
EPA, rather than the States,
has the responsibility for
protecting human health and
the environment on tribal
lands. Approximately 600
tribal CWSs serve an
estimated 622,000 people.
EPA staff members provide
these systems with technical
and other assistance so that
tribal CWSs maintain
compliance with Safe
Drinking Water Act
requirements.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2008/
20080916-08-P-0266.pdf
EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems
but Needs to Improve Oversight
What We Found
Tribal drinking water sample results in EPA files indicate that drinking water
supplies consistently met regulatory requirements. Regional EPA staff also made
correct compliance decisions with sample results that tribal CWSs provided.
However, internal control deficiencies existed in administering EPA's oversight
of tribal CWSs in two of the five regions we reviewed. To varying degrees, tribal
drinking water records in four of the five regions were incomplete due to a failure
to maintain oversight of system operations and/or poor records management.
We sought to verify, through independently collected samples, that these tribal
CWSs did not exceed drinking water regulatory limits. Of the approximately
2,300 independent samples analyzed, only 7 were above the limits. In those
cases, we informed regional staff and water system operators, who then took
follow-up actions.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water (1) establish national
and regional tribal drinking water program Standard Operating Procedures in
coordination with regional offices; (2) require Region 2 to submit a plan that
corrects deficiencies in how it currently implements its tribal drinking water
program, including those identified in this report; and (3) direct regions to issue
monitoring and reporting violations, take appropriate enforcement actions against
tribal CWSs with health-based violations or who fail to monitor or submit
monitoring reports, and enter violations into the Safe Drinking Water Information
System.
The Agency agreed with our recommendations.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
September 16, 2008
EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight
Report No. 08-P-0266
Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Benjamin Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
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 resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $830,903.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon
actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to
the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Dan Engelberg at
202-566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov, or Ira Brass at 212-637-3057 or brass.ira@epa.gov.
-------
EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems 08-P-0266
but Needs to Improve Oversight
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Accomplishments 3
Scope and Methodology 3
2 EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Tribal Drinking Water Systems 5
EPA Correctly Determined Compliance for Monitoring Reports
in Regional Files 5
Regions Varied in Oversight of Tribal Drinking Water Systems 6
OIG Water Sample Results within Regulatory Limits 9
EPA and Other Organizations Assist in Tribal Water System Compliance. 10
Conclusions and Recommendations 11
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 12
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 14
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology 15
B Lab Slips Missing from Regional Files 19
C Agency Response 22
D Distribution 27
-------
08-P-0266
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
We conducted this evaluation to assess the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) oversight and assistance of tribal community water systems
(CWSs), and to independently evaluate water quality at selected systems. We
focused on tribal CWSs because they are among the few systems that EPA
regions, rather than States, oversee. We sought answers to two questions:
1. What methods does EPA use to oversee compliance at community water
systems on tribal lands and how are data from these systems verified?
2. How well do community water systems on tribal lands monitor and report
compliance with national primary drinking water standards?
Background
EPA, rather than State government, has the responsibility for protecting human
health and the environment on tribal lands. The 1984 EPA Indian Policy
establishes nine principles to guide the Agency as it implements congressionally-
mandated responsibilities on tribal lands. The principles emphasize working
directly with tribal governments on a government-to-government basis,
recognizing tribal governments as primary parties for environmental policy
decisions, and encouraging/assisting tribes to assume regulatory and program
management responsibilities for their lands.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) creates an umbrella of responsibilities
aimed at safeguarding the drinking water of the population. EPA's regional
offices implement the SDWA1 for approximately 600 tribal CWSs, serving an
estimated 622,000 people.2 Tribal CWS operators collect water samples for
analysis by certified laboratories and then report those results to EPA. The Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) relies on drinking water staff
located in the regions to:
• Determine whether tribal CWS sampling results are within regulatory limits,
• Review and approve tribal CWS monitoring waiver applications,
40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 141.2 defines "State" as the agency of the State or tribal government that
has jurisdiction over public water systems. During any period when a State or tribal government does not have
primary enforcement responsibility pursuant to Section 1413 of SDWA, the term "State" means the Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA.
2 The Navajo Nation has authority to implement SDWA for 140 tribal systems and these were not evaluated in this
study.
-------
08-P-0266
• Provide assistance to tribal CWSs to prevent violations from occurring, and
• Take enforcement actions when drinking water regulations are violated.
EPA drinking water staff may issue violations when (1) a tribal CWS does not
conduct required monitoring or report sampling results or (2) a water sample
result exceeds the established maximum contaminant level (MCL). According to
the 1984 Indian Policy, EPA will work cooperatively with tribes to achieve
compliance. EPA considers direct enforcement action if there is a significant
threat to human health and the environment, if compliance is not achievable in a
timely manner, and if EPA cannot utilize other alternatives to correct the problem.
EPA has the authority to grant monitoring waivers or reduce monitoring
requirements if there is a limited likelihood of a contaminant being in a tribal
CWS's source water.3 Once a waiver is granted, the system is excused from
monitoring for a specified period of time. This reduces expenses for tribal CWSs
while maintaining human health protections. To retain consistency in the
decision-making process, one region we reviewed relies upon written guidelines
to evaluate monitoring waiver applications from tribal CWSs. Region 9 has a
detailed wavier application procedure for tribal CWSs requesting reductions in
monitoring requirements.
EPA also implements technical and compliance assistance programs to help tribal
CWSs protect human health and reduce incidents of drinking water violations.
These programs include operator training, sanitary surveys, source water
protection, technical assistance, and infrastructure grants. In the past 11 years, the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Set Aside grant program has allotted
approximately $135 million to improve tribal CWS infrastructure.
The Agency works to measure the effects of its enforcement and compliance
assistance programs by tracking how many tribal CWS customers consume water
that meets all drinking water standards. In the 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan, EPA
established a national goal that 86 percent of tribal CWS customers will drink
water that meets all health-based standards by 2011. Compliance assistance
efforts of EPA and other organizations help achieve this national performance
goal. The Indian Health Service, through collaboration with tribes, identifies
CWS infrastructure needs and enters these data in the Sanitation Deficiency
System. The Bureau of Reclamation provides technical and financial assistance
to tribal systems in the Western United States. EPA uses the information about
health-based violations reported in the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) to track and report progress to Congress on the performance of all water
systems at a national and regional level.
3 40 CFR 141 outlines the monitoring requirements for the drinking water contaminants regulated by EPA. It also
describes the conditions under which a monitoring waiver can be issued by the "State" and under which "States" can
reduce monitoring requirements.
-------
08-P-0266
Noteworthy Accomplishments
EPA has completed a number of noteworthy activities in its efforts to assist tribal
CWSs. The following is a summary of some of their most recent
accompli shments.
• The OGWDW issued the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification
Guidelines in May 2005 to help assess, track, and address certification needs
on tribal lands.
• The OGWDW developed a new Website that provides a consolidated list of
drinking water classroom and on-line training opportunities that may be of
interest to tribes and tribal operators.
• In June 2007, EPA launched the new Tribal Portal, a Website that provides
users with consolidated information about EPA tribal policies, contacts,
programs, and funding sources.
• Starting in 2003, an EPA contractor performed data verifications of the tribal
drinking water records in the regions we visited.
Scope and Methodology
We employed a variety of methods to evaluate the performance of tribal CWSs
and the processes used by EPA to oversee compliance of these systems. We
selected 25 tribal CWSs with no reported violations between 1997 and May 2007
from the SDWIS database (see Figure 1-1 and Appendix A, Table A-l).
Figure 1-1: Distribution of Selected 25 Tribal CWSs among EPA Regions
Red Lake Band of
Cliippewa Indians
Little Rock
Ponemah
Redby/Red Lake
Menominee Indian
Tribe of Wisconsin
Keshena
Neopit
Trailer Court
Grand Traverse Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
Peshawbestown
Seneca Nation of Indians
Cattaragus - Richardson Road
Cattaragus - Erie County
Hoag's Mobile Home Park
Hoag's Laundry
Jimersontown
Steamburg
Mashantucket Pequot
Tribal Nation
Mashantucket Pequot
Seminole Tribe of Florida
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Corn Creek
Horse Creek
Mission
Swift Bear
Sicangu Village Homes
Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians
Bogue Chitto
Conehatta
Pearl River
Tucker
Source: EPA's map of its regions with the locations of tribal CWSs added by OIG staff
-------
08-P-0266
We requested and reviewed the monitoring results for national primary drinking
water contaminants submitted by the 25 tribal CWSs to regional staff (see
Appendix A, Table A-2, for the data we requested). We conducted interviews
with personnel from Headquarters, Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, and tribal CWSs
about compliance assistance, operation and maintenance challenges, alternate
sources of assistance outside EPA, and individual monitoring requirements. We
also interviewed drinking water staff from Region 9 because this Region oversees
the largest number of tribal systems.
In addition, we contracted with an environmental services company to collect and
analyze drinking water samples from these systems. Personnel from the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) accompanied the contractor on site visits. We collected
samples from both the point of entry and the distribution system at 19 of the 25
tribal CWSs.4 At five systems we only collected samples from the point of entry.
This situation was due to time requirements for transporting samples to the
laboratory or to a lack of access to sampling points in the distribution system. At
one system we did not collect any samples because it permanently closed prior to
our site visit. Appendix A, Table A-3, contains a list of the tests we did not
perform at the tribal CWSs.
A laboratory analyzed the samples for contaminants regulated under EPA's
National Primary Drinking Water Standards with the exception of lead and
copper.5 EPA protocols were followed for sample collection and analysis. These
results are for information purposes and cannot substitute for regular drinking
water sampling requirements. In cases where these results were above regulatory
limits, we contacted regional staff and water system operators to discuss follow-
up actions.
Due to the small sample size and methods used to select the tribal CWSs, the
results of this evaluation cannot be used to generalize drinking water quality at
other tribal systems. The results of our independent samples were for information
purposes and did not substitute for regular drinking water sampling requirements.
We conducted this review in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 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. In addition, we discussed
internal controls regarding tribal water system compliance data.6 We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based upon our objectives. We performed our review from June
2007 to May 2008.
4 The point-of-entry sample is a type of water sample taken after treatment and before reaching the first consumer.
The distribution system is a network of pipes leading from a treatment plant to customers' plumbing systems.
5 The team did not include lead and copper in the scope of this evaluation because sampling requires advanced
planning to coordinate site visits with homeowners.
6 Internal controls are used to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of program/agency assets. It also includes the
processes for planning and directing program operations and systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring
program performance.
-------
08-P-0266
Chapter 2
EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of
Tribal Drinking Water Systems
Records of tribal drinking water sample results in EPA files indicate that drinking
water supplies consistently met regulatory requirements. Regional drinking water
staff also made correct compliance decisions with the sample results provided by
tribal CWSs. However, internal control deficiencies occurred in administering
EPA's oversight of tribal CWSs in two of the five regions we reviewed. To
varying degrees, tribal drinking water records in four of the five regions were
incomplete due to a failure to maintain oversight of system operations and/or poor
records management.
EPA Correctly Determined Compliance for Monitoring Reports in
Regional Files
Our examination of tribal CWS historical data in regional files (see Appendix A,
Table A-2) confirmed that EPA drinking water staff interpreted sample results to
draw correct compliance determinations. However, regions were only able to
provide us with all of the data we requested for 7 of the 25 tribal CWSs in this
evaluation. Because regional files were missing approximately 18 percent of the
sample results requested (861 of 4,910 sample results), we were unable to
evaluate EPA's performance in these cases. Figure 2-1 summarizes the amount of
requested compliance records we collected as well as the missing data by region.
Figure 2-1: Percentage of Requested Tribal Drinking Water Sample Results
Missing from Regional Files
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
832
941
508
493
II I
1174
609
4049
K^
-------
08-P-0266
We identified three reasons why the records were missing from EPA files:
1) Tribal CWSs failed to monitor for contaminants,
2) State involvement in tribal CWS oversight prevented monitoring
information from reaching the region, and
3) EPA drinking water staff members were unable to locate records or
records were lost over time.
For the approximately 4,000 monitoring results we collected from EPA's files, we
found that EPA staff made no errors in determining compliance with drinking
water regulations. For the results we reviewed, tribal CWSs submitted sampling
results in prescribed timeframes in all but two occasions. In Region 5, two tribal
CWSs submitted radionuclide sample results prior to the June 2000 through
December 2003 grandfathered period. The samples, taken outside the prescribed
sampling period, were within regulatory limits.
Regions Varied in Oversight of Tribal Drinking Water Systems
The five regions varied in the quality of oversight they provided to tribal CWSs.
Region 1's records were complete except for missing synthetic organic chemical
(SOC) samples caused by an error in instructions from the Region to the tribal
system. Regions 5 and 8 provided complete or near-complete records for tribal
CWSs located in those regions. Drinking water staff in these Regions attribute
their success to operator training programs and to regular communication with
them about sampling requirements. We found greater amounts of missing records
in Regions 2 and 4. In Region 2, tribal CWSs failed to monitor for certain
contaminants. Moreover, Region 2 chose not to enter known monitoring
violations into SDWIS and did not conduct enforcement actions against the
systems that committed these violations. In Region 4, State participation in tribal
CWS oversight prevented monitoring information from reaching the Region.
Without these sampling results, EPA was unable to determine compliance with
drinking water regulations.
Region 2 Did Not Issue Monitoring Violations to Tribal Systems or
Update SDWIS
Region 2 is missing approximately 15 percent of the drinking water sample results
we requested for 6 tribal CWSs (169 of 1,110 records). See Appendix B, Table
B-2, for a summary of the records missing from Region 2 files. Region 2 staff
said the missing data are a result of water systems failing to monitor for regulated
contaminants over many compliance periods. For all six tribal CWSs we
reviewed, Region 2 did not take enforcement actions when these systems failed to
collect samples and submit results for compliance determination. Region 2 also
did not report these violations into SDWIS, which stores information about
drinking water systems.
-------
08-P-0266
While drinking water regulations require water systems to annually monitor for
nitrate, Region 2 staff confirmed that regional files are missing nitrate results for
four of the six tribal CWSs for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 compliance periods.
This required test is important because excessive nitrate levels in children can
interfere with the oxygen-carrying capacity of their blood. Based on sampling
results from nearby systems using the same aquifer, regional personnel believed
that the quality of drinking water in these four tribal CWSs was good. Although
none of these systems tested above the established MCL for nitrate in our
independently collected samples, regulations require that regions take
enforcement actions when water systems do not monitor and report results to
EPA.
Moreover, we believe customers are likely unaware that their systems failed to
monitor for nitrate and other contaminants because these systems never provided
their customers with annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) in 2004, 2005,
or 2006, as required under SDWA.7 Had the water systems issued these annual
reports, they would have also been required to detail steps to correct monitoring
problems in the future. Region 2 confirmed that it also did not take enforcement
actions against the systems that failed to issue CCRs but plans to work with them
to ensure that tribal customers receive CCRs detailing 2007 water system
performance.
While we found incidents of monitoring and reporting problems with tribal CWSs
in Region 2, EPA staff informed one system of its concerns. In May 2007,
Region 2 notified the Shelton Park CWS about the physical condition of its
system, positive coliform bacteria samples, and handling and disposing of
household chemical waste. In a letter, Region 2 stated, "the well used to supply
water to the residents of Shelton Park is highly vulnerable to significant
contamination from both human and animal fecal waste and we (Region 2) are
concerned that the water is not being adequately disinfected."
Region 2 personnel reported to us that while concerns have been expressed to
Shelton Park, monitoring violations for this and other tribal CWSs have not been
recorded in SDWIS for the past 10 years. Region 2's Drinking Water Section
Chief reported that this stems from an understanding within the tribal drinking
water program that staff would focus its resources on compliance assistance rather
than enforcement actions.
In addition to missing enforcement actions in SDWIS, we found water system
inventory errors with tribal CWSs. Inventory data, such as water source and
population size, are information that regions use to determine sampling
requirements. If this information is incorrect, it can affect EPA's oversight. For
example, SDWIS identifies the Cattaraugus-Richardson Road tribal system and
7 40 CFR 141.51 outlines the information CWSs must include in their annual CCRs. In addition to distributing
copies to customers, tribal CWSs must mail a copy of the report to the appropriate EPA region and certify that the
report was delivered to customers by the July 1st deadline.
-------
08-P-0266
Cattaraugus-Erie County system as two distinct CWSs. Region 2 staff reported
that the Cattaraugus-Richardson Road system is actually part of the larger
Cattaraugus-Erie County system.
Region 4 Not Informed of Oversight Activities Taken by Mississippi
Region 4 is missing approximately 51 percent of the drinking water sample results
we requested for 5 tribal CWSs (508 of 1,001 records). The tribal CWSs in
Mississippi have an atypical relationship with the State's drinking water program.
While Region 4 has informally accepted regulatory decisions made by the State
for these water systems, it is unaware of the extent of Mississippi's regulatory
role.
Both Region 4 and the Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) regulate
the four water systems operated by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(MBCI). As the primary regulatory authority, Region 4 can issue waivers to these
tribal CWSs and/or reduce monitoring requirements based on the results of
monitoring samples. Because these four tribal CWSs participate in Mississippi's
sampling program, MSDH also serves a regulatory role by creating monitoring
schedules, issuing monitoring waivers, and reducing monitoring requirements for
regulated drinking water contaminants based on SDWA requirements.
Region 4 accepts monitoring waivers issued by MSDH for these tribal CWSs
because Mississippi has an EPA-approved drinking water and waiver program.
Drinking water regulations do not preclude Region 4, as the primacy agency for
tribal CWSs, from honoring waivers issued by another primacy agency, such as
MSDH. Under drinking water recordkeeping requirements, Region 4, as the
primacy agency for tribal CWSs, is required to keep documentation of waivers
and decisions to reduce monitoring requirements in its files for 12 years. Region
4 could not provide documentation for these regulatory decisions made by
MSDH, which accounts for 79 percent of data we categorize as missing (401 of
508 pieces of monitoring data) (see Appendix B, Table B-3). If Region 4 had
documentation of MSDH's regulatory decisions, we would only categorize
approximately 11 percent of the data we requested as missing.
Region 4 and MSDH both include the four tribal CWSs in their versions of the
SDWIS database, but do not reconcile the violation and enforcement-related
information reported in the individual databases. As a result, discrepancies
occurred between the two data systems. For example, according to the MSDH
information uploaded to SDWIS, the Pearl River CWS had a health-based total
coliform violation in August 2005. However, Region 4's database did not contain
this violation until after we reviewed SDWIS data in May 2007. Region 4's
database shows that Pearl River achieved Federal compliance for this violation in
September 2005.
-------
08-P-0266
Regions 1, 5, and 8 Consistently Tracked Monitoring Requirements
With minor exceptions, we found that Regions 1, 5, and 8 had generally good
oversight and records management practices. Because of this we were able to
confirm that the regions made correct compliance determinations for the tribal
CWSs in our sample. Region 1's files were complete except for second
consecutive quarterly samples for Synthetic Organic Chemicals for the
compliance periods 1999-2001, 2002-2004, and 2005-2007. In Region 5,
29 of 1,203 sampling results were missing for the 7 tribal CWSs in our sample.
Region 8 provided complete compliance histories for the six tribal CWSs in our
sample. See Appendix B for additional details about missing data.
OIG Water Sample Results within Regulatory Limits
We sought to verify, through independently collected samples, that these tribal
CWSs did not exceed MCLs for national primary drinking water regulations.
Nearly all the water samples we collected were below the MCLs established in
the drinking water standards and were consistent with the data we reviewed from
regional files. Of the approximately 2,300 independent samples analyzed, only 7
were above regulatory limits. In the cases where results were above these limits,
we informed regional staff (in Regions 5 and 8) and water system operators, who
then took follow-up actions. See Table 2-1 for a summary of sample results and
follow-up actions.
Table 2-1: Number of OIG Samples above Regulatory Limit
Tribal CWS
Name
Ponemah
Swift Bear
Corn Creek
American
Horse Creek
Location and
EPA Region
Red Lake, MN
EPA Region 5
Rosebud, SD
EPA Region 8
Rosebud, SD
EPA Region 8
Kyle, SD
EPA Region 8
Contaminant
Above
Regulatory
Limit
Total coliform
Total coliform
Total coliform
Arsenic
# of OIG
Samples
Collected
4
4
3
1
# of OIG
Samples
Above
Regulatory
Limit
4
1
1
1
Region and Tribal
CWS Follow-up
Actions
• Water system collected
4 additional samples
• All were negative for
total coliform
• Water system collected
1 additional sample
• This sample was
negative for total
coliform
• Water system collected
4 additional samples
• All were negative for
total coliform
• Region 8 is aware of
elevated arsenic levels
• The water system is
under an increased
monitoring schedule
Source: OIG analysis of independent samples and EPA region/tribal CWS operator follow-up actions
-------
08-P-0266
Once we alerted EPA regional staff and water system operators of the six positive
coliform samples, the systems collected and analyzed additional samples. A
single coliform exceedance does not constitute a violation of the drinking water
standard. The results from these re-tests showed an absence of total coliform in
the water.
The other exceedance of a drinking water standard occurred at the American
Horse Creek CWS in South Dakota. The sample result tested above the
established 0.010 mg/L MCL for arsenic at 0.014 mg/L. Prior to the
implementation of the new standard in 2006, the MCL for arsenic was 0.050
mg/L. Unrelated to these results, Region 8 compliance staff had already placed
the water system on an increased monitoring schedule, as is required by the new
arsenic drinking water regulation. According to the water system manager,
American Horse Creek will be connected to a new source by the end of 2009.
EPA and Other Organizations Assist in Tribal Water System
Compliance
In addition to its regulatory oversight responsibilities, EPA implements technical
and compliance assistance programs and collaborates with other organizations so
that tribal CWSs can maintain or improve their performance. In EPA's most
recent strategic planning document, the 2006- 2011 Strategic Plan., the Agency
committed to working with other Federal agencies to support developing drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure in Indian country.8 All six regions we
interviewed reported utilizing services of other Federal agencies and/or non-profit
groups to improve tribal CWSs' infrastructure and performance.
Regions helped tribal CWSs maintain compliance with monitoring requirements
by providing schedules for sample collections; assessing the technical,
managerial, and financial capacities of water systems; conducting operator
training courses; and answering technical questions about regulations.
While water system operators told us they were generally satisfied with the
assistance EPA provides, tribal water staff expressed a desire for more training
assistance.
EPA's collaboration with its contractors and Federal partners also help to improve
tribal CWS performance. EPA funds State Rural Water Association affiliates to
provide training and technical assistance to small systems, including tribal CWSs.
Three of the six regions we interviewed told us they consider information in the
Indian Health Service's Sanitation Deficiency System when prioritizing tribal
EPA has committed to reducing the number of tribal households that do not have access to safe drinking water and
basic sanitation by 50 percent by 2015. This commitment is in response to the developmental goals agreed to at the
2002 United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa. EPA works
with the following Federal agencies to improve tribal access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation: Department
of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
Department of the Interior.
10
-------
08-P-0266
drinking water system infrastructure needs and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund infrastructure grants.
Even with EPA's and other organizations' assistance provided to tribal CWSs,
many of the water system managers we interviewed told us that their systems face
similar challenges as operators at other small water systems have described to us
in the past.9 Some of these include the operators' desire for more training and
technical assistance, water rates that do not cover the costs of operation,
customers not paying their bills, governing bodies' reluctance to pay for
infrastructure improvements, and low pay for water operators. However, based
on our review of regional files and independent samples, the tribal CWSs we
reviewed are able to provide their customers with drinking water that meets
Federal standards.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The six regions whose tribal drinking water programs we reviewed provide tribal
CWSs with a variety of technical and other assistance activities that help these
systems provide safe drinking water to the public. Our independent samples show
that, at the time of our site visits, tribal customers received drinking water that
met health-based standards. Good source water, attentive water system staff, and
assistance from EPA and others were noted as helping tribal CWSs with their
performance. But incomplete compliance records and failures to issue violations
point to regional internal control deficiencies. Internal controls are an important
safeguard for ensuring that systems operate as intended. Deficiencies in these
controls may indicate that the systems are vulnerable to failure, resulting in
increased risk to public health. To improve its internal controls, EPA
Headquarters needs to clearly communicate to regions what is required and what
is allowed in terms of their oversight of tribal CWSs.
Region 4 needs to increase communication and coordination with MSDH for
tribal CWSs operated by the MBCI. While drinking water regulations do not
prevent Region 4 from honoring decisions made by MSDH to reduce monitoring
or issue waivers, without documentation we cannot determine if Region 4 staff
made timely and accurate compliance determinations. Greater coordination and
communication would reduce the amount of missing compliance data in
Region 4's files, as well as improve the accuracy and completeness of SDWIS
entries. Implementing a formal waiver policy, similar to Region 9's Tribal
Drinking Water Monitoring Waiver Program, would help to ensure that MSDH
issues waivers and reduces monitoring requirements based on statutory
regulations.
Region 2's decision to not issue monitoring violations is counter to Agency
oversight responsibilities under SDWA. This undermines the transparency that
9 EPA OIG Report No. 2006-P-00026, Much Effort and Resources Needed to Help Small Drinking Water Systems
Overcome Challenges, May 30, 2006.
11
-------
08-P-0266
should exist between water systems and their customers, especially since water
systems are required to report all violations in their annual CCRs. The absence of
monitoring violations in SDWIS also affects EPA's overall efforts to improve the
completeness of this database. This database, which is also available to the
public, does not currently reflect the compliance history for all six tribal CWSs
we reviewed in Region 2. EPA needs this database to contain accurate and
complete drinking water violation data so that it can monitor its progress at
meeting performance goals and report complete and unbiased information to
Congress and the public. The fact that no one in Region 2 addressed longstanding
issues is a serious oversight.
The Office of Water needs to address the issues identified in Regions 2 and 4 at a
national level, as these or related problems may exist in other regional programs.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Office of Water:
2-1 Establish national and regional tribal drinking water program Standard
Operating Procedures in coordination with regional offices. The Standard
Operating Procedures should include:
a) Documenting waiver determinations made by regions, and where
appropriate, similar determinations made by States;
b) Documenting the roles, contractual relationships, and agreements
between EPA, States, and tribes where the three parties share
responsibilities of the tribal drinking water program;
c) Following records retention guidelines as required by 40 CFR 141
and 40 CFR 142 and guidance from the Office of Water; and
d) Entering violations into SDWIS.
2-2 Require Region 2 to submit a plan that corrects deficiencies in how it
currently implements its tribal drinking water program, including those
identified in this report. Once submitted, ensure that all the elements of
the plan are completed.
2-3 Direct regions to issue monitoring and reporting violations, take
appropriate enforcement actions against tribal CWSs with health-based
violations or who fail to monitor or submit monitoring reports, and enter
violations into SDWIS.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, responded to our draft report on
September 4, 2008 (see Appendix C). He agreed with our recommendations and
provided information about actions that have and will be taken to address them.
Based on the Office of Water's comments, we made changes to the report as
appropriate.
12
-------
08-P-0266
In response to our first recommendation, the Office of Water states that it always
expected that EPA regions implementing the tribal drinking water program should
follow the same requirements and guidelines that EPA develops for States.
Because this expectation has never been formally documented, the Office of
Water agreed that it is appropriate to do so in formal guidance. The Office of
Water plans to issue guidance regarding these procedures in Fiscal Year 2009.
Additionally, the Office of Water states that Region 4 has already taken steps to
address issues raised in the report; it is writing a formal waiver policy, creating
records for tribal systems to document specifics of issued waivers, developing an
electronic filing system, and coordinating with MSDH.
In response to our second recommendation, the Office of Water states that it
expects to develop a plan to help Region 2 make significant improvements to its
tribal drinking water program in Fiscal Year 2009. It plans to implement the
improvement plan shortly after it is completed. The recent installation of
SDWIS/STATE software on Region 2's server will help formalize the data
management and reporting process. Additionally, Region 2 plans to make
SDWIS/STATE data available to the public through Drinking Water Watch.
In response to our third recommendation, the Office of Water agrees that it is
appropriate to document its expectations that EPA regions implementing the tribal
drinking water program should follow the same requirements and guidelines that
EPA develops for States. The Office of Water plans to issue guidance regarding
these procedures in Fiscal Year 2009.
We view these as positive actions in response to our recommendations. We
expect the Office of Water will assure its planned guidelines (Standard Operating
Procedures) address the needed corrective actions identified in our report and that
regional offices implement the guidelines.
13
-------
08-P-0266
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
2-1 12 Establish national and regional tribal drinking water
program Standard Operating Procedures in
coordination with regional offices. The Standard
Operating Procedures should include:
a) Documenting waiver determinations made
by regions, and where appropriate, similar
determinations made by States;
b) Documenting the roles, contractual
relationships, and agreements between
EPA, States, and tribes where the three
parties share responsibilities of the tribal
drinking water program;
c) Following records retention guidelines as
required by 40 CFR 141 and 40 CFR 142
and guidance from the Office of Water;
and
d) Entering violations into SDWIS.
2-2 12 Require Region 2 to submit a plan that corrects
deficiencies in how it currently implements its tribal
drinking water program, including those identified in
this report. Once submitted, ensure that all the
elements of the plan are completed.
2-3 12 Direct regions to issue monitoring and reporting
violations, take appropriate enforcement actions
against tribal CWSs with health-based violations or
who fail to monitor or submit monitoring reports,
and enter violations into SDWIS.
Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water
Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water
Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
14
-------
08-P-0266
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
We conducted this review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
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.
Due to the small sample size and methods used to select the tribal CWSs, the results of this
evaluation cannot be used to generalize drinking water quality at other tribal systems.
Criteria Used to Select Tribal Community Water Systems
We reviewed the tribal portion of EPA's SDWIS for community water systems with perfect
compliance histories for the last 10 years (1997 to May 2007). Systems with perfect compliance
histories do not have monitoring and reporting or health-based violations during this timeframe.
We sorted the identified water systems by location and population, and selected final systems for
review based on these criteria. We expanded our sample of tribal CWSs by selecting other water
systems with perfect compliance histories operated and managed by tribes with the largest
populations served. The results of our independent samples were for information purposes and
did not substitute for regular drinking water sampling requirements. Our final sample of tribal
CWSs included 25 systems operated by 9 tribal nations (see Table A-l).
Table A-1: Tribal CWSs Included in the OIG Sample
Tribal CWS Name
Mashantucket Pequot
Shelton Park (Hoag's Mobile Home Park)
Hoag's Laundry
Cattaraugus - Richardson Rd. Water Supply
Steamburg Water System
Jimersontown Water System
Cattaraugus - Erie County CWS
Seminole Utilities Immokalee
Choctaw - Conehatta
Choctaw - Bogue Chitto
Choctaw -Tucker
Choctaw - Pearl River
Peshawbestown
Little Rock
Redby/Red Lake
Ponemah
Keshena
Neopit
Trailer Court
Location
Mashantucket, CT
Salamanca, NY
Salamanca, NY
Salamanca, NY
Salamanca, NY
Salamanca, NY
Salamanca, NY
Hollywood, FL
Conehatta, MS
Bogue Chitto, MS
Tucker, MS
Choctaw, MS
Buttons Bay, Ml
Red Lake, MN
Red Lake, MN
Red Lake, MN
Keshena, Wl
Keshena, Wl
Keshena, Wl
Population
Served
41,000
125
155
300
300
800
2,800
3,101
474
597
752
1,175
2,135
236
1,863
371
3,500
675
68
Public Water
System
Identification
Number
10106001
20011102
20011103
20000002
20000004
20000001
20000008
41200004
42800001
42800002
42800003
42800004
55293601
55294604
55294602
55294603
55295502
55295503
55295504
EPA
Region
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
-------
08-P-0266
Table A-1: Tribal CWSs Included in the OIG Sample (continued)
Tribal CWS Name
Mission Water System
Horse Creek Water System
Swift Bear
Corn Creek
Sicangu Village Homes
American Horse Creek
Location
Rosebud, SD
Rosebud, SD
Rosebud, SD
Rosebud, SD
Rosebud, SD
Pine Ridge, SD
Population
Served
1,341
312
260
180
100
1,283
Public Water
System
Identification
Number
84690532
84690516
84690491
84690492
84690531
84690023
EPA
Region
8
8
8
8
8
8
Source: OIG analysis of SDWIS data
Interviews with EPA Region Tribal Drinking Water Staff
We interviewed tribal drinking water staff located in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 about their
oversight and assistance activities, including:
• The types of oversight and assistance provided to tribal CWSs,
• The availability of policy documents that direct regional interactions with tribes,
• Formal reviews of data submitted by tribal CWSs to determine if data are accurate and
complete,
• The constraints to providing oversight and assistance to tribal CWSs, and
• Sources of non-EPA (other Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations) assistance
available to tribal CWSs and how a region coordinates assistance efforts.
We also asked staff in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 questions specific to the selected tribal CWSs in
each region:
• Contact information for the tribal leaders and water system operators,
• What factors contribute to the tribal CWSs' perfect compliance history over the last
10 years, and
• The results of the most recent sanitary survey or visit to the tribal CWS.
Review of Tribal CWS-Related Documents and Analysis of Historic
Drinking Water Data
As part of our evaluation, we requested and reviewed a variety of documents related to the
selected tribal CWSs, such as compliance reports, sanitary survey results, data verifications, and
operator training and certification records. We also requested historic drinking water data for the
contaminants regulated by EPA under its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations from
each of the 25 tribal CWSs (see Table A-2).
16
-------
08-P-0266
Table A-2: Contaminant Data Requested from EPA Regions by OIG
Contaminant Group
Total Coliform and Disinfectants
Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity,
Individual Filter Effluent Turbidity
Disinfection Byproducts (Total
Trihalomethanes - TTHM and
Haloacetic Acids - HAAS)
Nitrate and Nitrite
Inorganic Chemical (IOC)
Synthetic Organic Chemical (SOC)
Volatile Organic Chemical (VOC)
Radionuclides
Compliance Periods Requested by OIG
January 2007 to June 2007 (monthly reports)
January 2007 to June 2007 (monthly reports) -
Requested for ground water system under the
influence of surface water in Region 1
2004, 2005, 2006, and 20071 (annual reports)
2004, 2005, 2006, and 20071 (annual reports)
1999-2001 , 2002-2004, and 2005-20072
(triennial reports)
1999-2001 , 2002-2004, and 2005-20072
(triennial reports)
1999-2001 , 2002-2004, and 2005-20072
(triennial reports)
June 2000-December2003, 2004-2007
The 2007 annual reports for nitrate, nitrite, and disinfection byproducts were not due until after the end of
the year. Not all water systems had submitted their results at the time of our information request.
2 The 2005-2007 IOC, SOC, and VOC results were not due until after the end of the year. Not all water
systems had submitted their results at the time of our information request.
Source: OIG information requests sent to Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8
Drinking Water Sample Collection and Analysis
We tested the drinking water quality of each of the 25 tribal CWSs for all of the contaminants
included in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (except lead and copper). We
contracted with an environmental services company to collect and analyze drinking water
samples from these systems. At most tribal CWSs (19 of 25), the team collected samples from
the point of entry and within the distribution system. At five systems we only collected samples
from the point of entry because of time needed to transport samples to the laboratory or lack of
access to sampling points in the distribution system. At one system we did not collect any
samples because it permanently closed prior to our site visit. See Table A-3 for the tests we did
not perform at the tribal CWSs.
17
-------
08-P-0266
Table A-3: Independent Samples Not Collected by OIG
Sampling Point
Point of Entry
Distribution System
Tribal CWS
Hoag's Laundry, NY1
Peshawbestown, Ml
Little Rock, MN
Conehatta, MS
Hoag's Laundry, NY1
Jimersontown, NY
Steamburg, NY
Regulated Contaminants
Inorganic Chemicals (lOCs)
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Radionuclides
Nitrate and Nitrite
Asbestos
Total coliform
Chlorine
Disinfection Byproducts
This water system closed in October 2007, prior to OIG sampling activities.
2 Due to time constraints or limited access to private homes, distribution system samples were
not collected from these systems.
Source: OIG analysis of independent data
Collecting and analyzing the drinking water samples was done according to an approved quality
control plan. The laboratories used to analyze the drinking water samples were certified by EPA
and the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, Inc., and used EPA-
approved methods to analyze the samples. We ensured that the tribal CWSs do not use the
contracted laboratories to analyze their samples routinely collected to determine their compliance
with drinking water regulations.
Interviews with Tribal Community Water System Operators
While we conducted our site visits to the tribal CWSs operated by nine tribal nations, we asked
each water system operator questions about the following topics:
• The current and future operation/maintenance challenges faced by the system in trying to
comply with drinking water regulations,
• Access to sufficient funds to properly operate and maintain the water system,
• The relationship between the tribal CWS and the EPA region's tribal drinking water and
tribal program staff,
• Reasons why the operator feels the water system has a good compliance record,
• Access to adequate technical assistance from EPA regions (and other sources, if
applicable), and
• Any thoughts about what EPA regions could do better to assist the tribal CWS.
18
-------
08-P-0266
Appendix B
Lab Slips Missing from Regional Files
Table B-1: Region 1 Missing Data
Tribal CWS Name
Mashantucket
Pequot
Point of Entry #1
and
Point of Entry #2
Mashantucket
Pequot
Point of Entry #1
Missing
Compliance Data
SOCs
SOCs
Compliance Period
1999-2001,2002-2004
Missing 2nd quarterly
compliance result for each
period for both points of
entry.
2005-2007
Missing 2nd quarterly
compliance result for this
period for one point of entry.
Notes
EPA did not inform the
water system of revised
compliance sampling due to
population increase.
EPA did not inform the
water system of revised
compliance sampling due to
population increase.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data
Table B-2: Region 2 Missing Data
Tribal CWS Name
Shelton Park
(Hoag'slll-MHP)
Hoag's Laundry
Cattaraugus
(Richardson Road)
Steamburg WS
Jimersontown
Cattaraugus
(Erie County -
purchased water)
Missing
Compliance Data
Radionuclides
Nitrate & Nitrite
IOC - Asbestos*
Nitrate & Nitrite
IOCS & SOCs & VOCs
Coliform
IOCS & SOCs & VOCs
Chlorine Residual
Nitrate & Nitrite
IOC - Asbestos*
Chlorine Residual
Nitrate & Nitrite
IOC - Asbestos*
Coliform
Compliance Period
Missing 3rd quarter of 4 consecutive quarters for initial
monitoring period.
2004, 2005, 2006
2002 -2004
2004, 2005, 2006
2002-2004
January 2007
2002-2004
April through July - 2007
2004, 2005, 2006
2002-2004
April through July - 2007
2004, 2005, 2006
2002-2004
January 2007
*No waiver- Region 2
Steamburg, and Hoag
e-mail of 1/11/08 maintaining that there are no asbestos pipes within the Jimersontown,
s Mobile Home Park (Shelton Park) Water Systems.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data
19
-------
08-P-0266
Table B-3: Region 4 Missing Data
Tribal CWS
Name
MBCI Bogue
Chitto
MBCI Conehatta
MBCI Pearl
River
Missing
Compliance Data
TTHM and HAAS
IOC (Asbestos only)
SOCs (all)
VOCs (all)
Radionuclides
TTHM and HAAS
Nitrate
Nitrite
IOC (Asbestos only)
SOCs (all)
VOCs (all)
Radionuclides
TTHM and HAAS
Nitrate
Nitrite
IOC (Asbestos only)
VOCs (all)
Radionuclides
Compliance
Period
2005, 2006
1999-2001;2002-
2004
1999-2001; 2002-
2004
2005; 2006
4 consecutive
quarters after
Decembers, 2003
2005, 2006
2004
2004
1999-2001;2002-
2004
1999-2001; 2002-
2004
2005; 2006
4 consecutive
quarters after
Decembers, 2003
2005, 2006
2006
2006
1999-2001; 2002-
2004
2005; 2006
4 consecutive
quarters after
Decembers, 2003
Notes
Not in Region 4's files; MSDH reduced
monitoring to triennially
MSDH waiver; no copy in Region 4's files
MSDH waiver; no copy in Region 4's files
MSDH 6-year waiver; no copy in Region
4's files
Not in Region 4's files; MSDH reduced
monitoring to triennially
MSDH waiver; no copy in Region 4's files
MSDH waiver; no copy in Region 4's files
MSDH 6-year waiver; no copy in Region
4's files
Not in Region 4's files; MSDH reduced
monitoring to triennially
Not in Region 4's files
MSDH waiver; no copy in Region 4's files
MSDH 6-year waiver; no copy in Region
4's files
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data
20
-------
08-P-0266
Table B-3: Region 4 Missing Data (continued)
Tribal CWS
Name
MBCI Tucker
Seminole
Immokalee
Missing
Compliance Data
TTHM and HAAS
IOC (Asbestos only)
SOCs (all)
VOCs (all)
Radionuclides
Nitrite
SOC (Dioxin only)
Radionuclides
Compliance
Period
2005, 2006
2002-2004
2002-2004
2005; 2006
4 consecutive
quarters after
Decembers, 2003
2006
2002-2004
4 consecutive
quarters after
December 8, 2003
Notes
Not in Region 4's files; MSDH reduced
monitoring to triennially
Eligible for MSDH waiver
MSDH waiver; no copy in Region 4's files
MSDH 6-year waiver; no copy in Region
4's files
Florida does not require public water
system to test for dioxin; Region 4 made
operators aware that they do need to test
for dioxin in the current compliance
period (2005-2007)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data
Table B-4: Region 5 Missing Data
Tribal CWS Name
Red by/Red Lake
Ponemah
Little Rock
Red by/Red Lake
Ponemah
Little Rock
Peshawbestown
Neopit and Keshena
Missing
Compliance Data
Cadmium
Asbestos
VOCs
Fluoride
Compliance Period
1999-2001
2002-2004
1999-2001
2002-2004
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data
Table B-5: Region 8 Missing Data
Tribal CWS Name
None
Missing
Compliance
Data
Compliance
Period
Notes
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data
21
-------
08-P-0266
Appendix C
Agency Response
September 4, 2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight, Project
No. 2007-000873, Draft Report
FROM: Benjamin H. Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
TO: Dan Engelberg
Director of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Office's draft report, EPA Assisting
Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight. I will respond briefly to the overall
findings, with more detailed responses to your recommendations and technical comments
attached.
The report found that Tribal drinking water supplies consistently met regulatory
requirements and regional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff made correct
compliance decisions. However, internal control deficiencies existed in two regions, and four
regions could improve their records management. Over the past several years, the EPA has been
working to implement programs from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) as they apply to
tribal public water systems. EPA has identified areas for improvement in regional
implementation of the SDWA through the data verification process, and the regions have
updated their procedures to address many of these issues. Proper oversight and records
maintenance is the foundation of compliance and is necessary for achieving EPA's primary
mission of public health protection.
EPA's goal is that all consumers receive drinking water that consistently meets public
health standards, no matter where the consumer is receiving water. The national water program
has always expected EPA Regions implementing the Tribal drinking water program to follow the
same requirements and guidelines that EPA develops for states. This expectation, while being
implemented in most cases, has never been formally documented. The national water program
agrees with the recommendations in the draft report to clarify these procedures. We plan to issue
guidance regarding these expectations in FY 2009.
Regions 2 and 4 have already taken specific actions to address issues raised during this
investigation. Region 2 is in the process of addressing the incomplete reporting of Tribal
22
-------
08-P-0266
monitoring and reporting (M/R) violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act to the federal
database. The Region intends to report historical M/R violations that were missed and ensure
that all future violations are reported in a timely manor. Region 4 is coordinating with the
Mississippi State Department of Health regarding record keeping practices, and accuracy and
completeness of Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) data. They are also writing
a formal waiver policy and developing an electronic filing system to improve the accuracy of the
files. The national water program also plans to use the most recent set of regional data
verifications to improve oversight of the EPA Tribal drinking water program.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. If you have
questions regarding our comments, please contact Nanci E. Gelb, Deputy Director, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, at (202) 564-3750.
Attachments
23
-------
08-P-0266
Attachment 1
EPA Response to Recommendations
Recommendation 2-1: Establish national and regional tribal drinking water program
Standard Operating Procedures in coordination with regional offices. The Standard
Operating Procedures should include:
a) Documenting waiver determinations made by regions, and where
appropriate, similar determinations made by states,
b) Documenting the roles, contractual relationships, and agreements between
EPA, states, and tribes where the three parties share responsibilities of the
tribal drinking water program,
c) Following records retention guidelines as required by 40 CFR 141 and 40
CFR 142 and guidance from the Office of Water, and
d) Entering violations into SDWIS.
Response: The national water program has always had the expectation that the EPA Regions
implementing the Tribal drinking water program should follow the same requirements and
guidelines that EPA develops for states. However, this expectation has never been formally
documented. The national water program agrees that it is appropriate to clarify these
expectations and plans to issue guidance regarding these procedures in FY 2009.
Region 4 has already taken steps to address issues raised in the report. Specifically, record
keeping practices, communication and coordination with the Mississippi State Department of
Health (MSDH), and accuracy and completeness of the SDWIS/State data have been improved.
Region 4 is writing a formal waiver policy and creating a record for each water system file to
document the specifics of the waiver. An electronic filing system is being developed to improve
the accuracy of the files. Region 4 has contacted the State of Mississippi to ensure that no
duplication of water systems exists in the SDWIS/Fed inventory. The State confined by email on
July 24, 2008 that the Choctaw water systems were removed from the State's inventory.
Recommendation 2-2: Require Region 2 to submit a plan that corrects deficiencies in how
it currently implements its tribal drinking water program, including those identified in this
report. Once submitted, ensure that all the elements of the plan are completed.
Response: The national water program agrees that Region 2 needs to make significant
improvements to its Tribal drinking water program and supports the development and
implementation of an improvement plan. We expect this plan to be developed in FY 2009 and
implemented shortly after it is completed.
Region 2 is in the process of addressing the incomplete reporting of Tribal monitoring &
reporting (M/R) violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act to the federal database, SDWIS/FED.
The Region's plan is to report historical M/R violations that were missed and ensure that all
future violations are reported in a timely manor. This data management and reporting process is
24
-------
08-P-0266
to be more formalized by using the SDWIS/STATE software, which was just recently installed
on the Region's network server.
Region 2 also plans to make the data in SDWIS/STATE available to the public via Drinking
Water Watch on the Region 2 web page. Drinking Water Watch is an Internet portal to
SDWIS/STATE that will allow citizens to directly access drinking water compliance data and
other information for water systems on tribal lands and encourage more public accountability
regarding water quality.
Recommendation 2-3: Direct regions to issue monitoring and reporting violations, take
appropriate enforcement actions against tribal CWSs with health-based violations or who
fail to monitor or submit monitoring reports, and enter violations into SDWIS.
Response: As with the first recommendation, the national water program has always had the
expectation that the EPA Regions implementing the Tribal drinking water program should follow
the same requirements and guidelines that EPA develops for states. The national water program
agrees that it is appropriate to clarify these expectations and plans to issue guidance regarding
these procedures in FY 2009.
25
-------
08-P-0266
Attachment 2
Specific Comments on the Draft Report
Page 2: The Report references an IHS "Sanitary Deficiency Survey". This terminology is
incorrect. We recommend that you revise as follows: "The Indian Health Service, through
collaboration with tribes, identifies CWS infrastructure needs and enters this data in the
Sanitation Deficiency System."
Page 3: Please add another noteworthy accomplishment: EPA is working with its Federal
partners on approaches to meeting EPA's strategic goal to reduce by half the number of homes
lacking access to safe drinking water and safe waste water disposal by 2015.
Page 6: In the first full paragraph, the second to last sentence should read "... June 2000 to
December 2003 grandfather period."
Page 10: Please revise the final sentence as follows: "Three of the six Regions we interviewed
consider information in the Indian Health Service's Sanitation Deficiency System when
prioritizing tribal drinking water system infrastructure needs and Drinking water State Revolving
Fund infrastructure grants."
Page 11: Although the OIG took samples in five regions, interviews were conducted in six
regions. All nine regions with Tribal drinking water programs offer a variety of technical and
assistance activities. The first sentence under "Conclusions and Recommendations" should more
clearly state "The six regions interviewed . . ."
26
-------
08-P-0266
Appendix D
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Deputy Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Director, American Indian Environmental Office
Acting Deputy Director, American Indian Environmental Office
Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Water
Office of General Counsel
Deputy Inspector General
27
------- |