5-
<
^tDsrx
o
w
%
% PRO^C<
o
Ui
o
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ensuring clean and safe water
Compliance with the law
Management Weaknesses
Delayed Response to Flint
Water Crisis
Report No. 18-P-0221
July 19, 2018
VIR0NMEN1
-------
Report Contributors:
Stacey Banks
Charles Brunton
Kathlene Butler
Allison Dutton
Tiffine Johnson-Davis
Fred Light
Jayne Lilienfeld-Jones
Tim Roach
Luke Stolz
Danielle Tesch
Khadija Walker
Abbreviations
CCT
Corrosion Control Treatment
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY
Fiscal Year
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
LCR
Lead and Copper Rule
MDEQ
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OW
Office of Water
ppb
parts per billion
PQL
Practical Quantitation Limit
PWSS
Public Water System Supervision
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
Cover Photo: EPA Region 5 emergency response vehicle in Flint, Michigan. (EPA photo)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
.^6° S7/w
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 18-P-0221
| \ Hffirp of Insnprtnr ^pnpral July 19,2018
1 VtY I
\ 1 /
*1 PRO*^t
. . u.o. ciiviiuiuiieiiidi riuieou
\ Office of Inspector General
W? s
At a Glance
Why We Did This Project
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Inspector General
(OIG) conducted this audit to
examine the circumstances of,
and the EPA's response to,
contamination in the city of
Flint, Michigan's community
water system, including the
EPA's exercise of its oversight
authority. After Flint switched
its drinking water supply in
April 2014, inadequate water
treatment exposed many Flint
residents to lead.
In October 2016, the OIG
issued a Management Alert
to the EPA about specific
factors that delayed its
emergency response. Our
current report evaluates
additional matters concerning
the agency's management
controls when responding to the
Flint contamination incident.
According to the MDEQ, more
than $400 million in public funds
has been spent by the EPA and
Michigan to address the Flint
crisis. Eight other federal
agencies also provided support.
This report addresses the
following:
• Ensuring clean and safe
water.
• Compliance with the law.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oia.
Listing of OIG reports.
Management Weaknesses Delayed
Response to Flint Water Crisis
The EPA should strengthen
its oversight of state drinking
water programs to improve
the efficiency and
effectiveness of the agency's
response to drinking water
contamination emergencies.
What We Found
The circumstances and response to Flint's
drinking water contamination involved
implementation and oversight lapses at
the EPA, the state of Michigan, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ),
and the city of Flint. Since January 21, 2016,
the EPA has overseen the implementation of
its emergency administrative order and
amendment issued in response to the drinking water contamination.
EPA Region 5 and EPA headquarters officials have worked with the MDEQ and
Flint personnel to help improve the city's water system. As of May 2018, the state
of Michigan and city of Flint have completed some actions and are working on
remaining actions.
Michigan: Under the MDEQ's supervision, the Flint water system did not adhere
to two Lead and Copper Rule requirements: (1) develop and maintain an
inventory of lead service lines needed for sampling, and (2) maintain corrosion
control treatment after the water source switch in April 2014. The rule requires
utilities to minimize consumers' exposure to lead in drinking water. As the primacy
agency, the MDEQ is responsible for enforcing this rule for Michigan water
systems. The MDEQ did not issue a notice of violation or take other formal
enforcement action regarding either requirement until August 2015. Instead, the
MDEQ advised Flint public water system staff to conduct additional tests and to
delay corrosion control treatment installation. The decision to delay corrosion
control treatment prolonged residents' exposure to lead.
The EPA: The agency retains oversight and enforcement authorities to provide
assurance that states with primacy comply with Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements, such as those in the Lead and Copper Rule. However, Region 5
did not implement management controls that could have facilitated more informed
and proactive decision-making when Flint and the MDEQ did not properly
implement the Lead and Copper Rule. While Flint residents were being exposed
to lead in drinking water, the federal response was delayed, in part, because the
EPA did not establish clear roles and responsibilities, risk assessment
procedures, effective communication and proactive oversight tools.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that EPA headquarters and EPA Region 5 use lessons learned
from Flint to improve its oversight of Safe Drinking Water Act compliance. We also
recommend that EPA headquarters revise the Lead and Copper Rule to improve
the effectiveness of monitoring requirements. The EPA agreed with eight of the
nine recommendations and provided adequate planned corrective actions and
completion dates. Eight recommendations are resolved pending completion of
corrective actions. Recommendation 1 is unresolved.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
July 19,2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Management Weaknesses Delayed Response to Flint Water Crisis
Report No. 18-P-0221
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator
Region 5
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this audit was OPE-FY16-0031. 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 audit resolution procedures.
The EPA offices responsible for responding to issues in this report are the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance; the Office of Water; and the Office of the Regional Administrator, Region 5.
Action Required
This report contains one unresolved recommendation. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, the
resolution process begins immediately with the issuance of this report. We are requesting a meeting
within 30 days between the Assistant Administrator for Water and the OIG's Assistant Inspector
General for Audit and Evaluation. If resolution is still not reached, the Office of Water is required to
complete and submit a dispute resolution request to the Chief Financial Officer to continue resolution.
FROM
Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO
Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Management Weaknesses Delayed
Response to Flint Water Crisis
18-P-0221
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 11
Prior Reports 11
Scope and Methodology 11
2 Circumstances Leading to Flint Drinking Water
Contamination and EPA Emergency Administrative Order 13
Inventory of Required Tier 1 Locations Was Not Maintained 13
Corrosion Control Treatment Was Not Maintained 13
Conclusion 15
Recommendations 15
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 15
3 EPA Region 5's Management Weaknesses
Delayed Federal Intervention 17
Region 5 and MDEQ Did Not Establish Clear Oversight
Roles and Responsibilities 17
EPA and MDEQ Did Not Communicate Effectively 19
Region 5 Did Not Have an Effective System
for Risk Assessment 21
Region 5 Did Not Use Oversight and Monitoring
Authorities and Tools to Influence MDEQ 24
Conclusion 27
Recommendations 27
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 28
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 30
Appendices
A Timeline of Key Events 32
B Status of Emergency Administrative Order and Amendment 38
C Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 50
D Distribution 69
-------
Chapter 1
introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) conducted this review to examine the circumstances of, and the
EPA's response to, the contamination in the city of Flint, Michigan's community
water system,1 including the EPA's exercise of its oversight authority.
EPA OIG Report No. 17-P-0004, Management Alert: Drinking Water
Contamination in Flint, Michigan, Demonstrates a Need to Clarify EPA Authority
to Issue Emergency Orders to Protect the Public, issued October 20, 2016, alerted
the EPA about specific factors that delayed its response. Our current report
evaluates management controls at EPA Region 5 (responsible for Michigan), and
EPA headquarters' response to the Flint contamination incident.
Background
Drinking Water Contamination in Flint, Michigan
Flint Water Treatment Plant sign. (EPA OIG photo)
In April 2014, Flint's water system, serving
drinking water to a population of nearly
100,000 residents, switched from purchasing
treated water from the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department (now called Great Lakes
Water Authority) to sourcing and treating its
own water supply from the Flint River.
Governor-appointed emergency managers
charged with improving Flint's finances
initially opposed this change, but ultimately
implemented it as a cost-saving measure.
Since 1967, the Flint drinking water plant had only distributed drinking water
purchased from Detroit. Flint emergency managers considered the use of the Flint
River to be temporary. They planned to purchase water from a new utility, the
Karegnondi Water Authority, starting in 2016.
Detroit's water system included an additive that coated pipes to prevent corrosion.
The city of Flint's process for treating water from the new source did not include
1 The Safe Drinking Water Act and its regulations classifies Flint's public water system as a large community
drinking water system hereafter referred to as the Flint "water system."
WATER PLANT & FACILITIES
18-P-0221
1
-------
treatment for reducing corrosion. Without this treatment, lead from components
within the distribution system can leach into drinking water.
After the April 2014 source switch, consumers began complaining about water
quality issues. In August 2014, EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) data
showed the city of Flint violated regulations for total coliform (bacteria), and in
December 2014, total trihalomethanes (a byproduct of the disinfection process).
In February 2015, citizens started reporting concerns about lead contamination to
EPA Region 5.
Appendix A contains a detailed timeline of events associated with the Flint
drinking water incident.
SDWA and State Primacy
The SDWA, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq., is the federal law that protects public
drinking water supplies throughout the nation. The law assigns the EPA
Administrator the ultimate authority to protect public health by setting and
enforcing drinking water quality standards. However, the SDWA allows the EPA
to grant states the authority to implement and enforce SDWA regulations in an
arrangement referred to as "primacy."
To receive EPA approval for primacy, states must demonstrate that they have
adopted regulations that are at least as stringent as national requirements, are
implementing adequate procedures for the enforcement of these regulations, and
will keep records and make reports as the EPA may require. The EPA has granted
nearly all states—including Michigan—primacy to implement the SDWA.2 When
states are granted primacy, the EPA retains the responsibility for overseeing state
implementation and federal enforcement authority. In 1978, the EPA determined
that Michigan met all SDWA requirements to be granted primacy, including
adopting and implementing enforcement procedures.
Guidance from the EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) instructs EPA regional
offices to "ensure that primacy agencies fulfill the
enforcement conditions of their primacy agreements."3
The EPA uses a variety of tools to oversee state drinking
water implementation, such as providing technical
assistance and regularly conferring with state agencies.
Specifically, the SDWA authorizes the EPA to request
information, take independent enforcement actions, and
revoke state primacy when states do not implement the
SDWA with the stringency required by federal law.
Sign directing residents to water distribution
center during response efforts. (EPA photo)
2 The state of Wyoming. Washington. D C., and most tribes are not authorized to implement the SDWA.
3 OECA National Program Manager Guidance for fiscal years (FYs) 2016-2017.
18-P-0221
2
-------
Figure 1: Diagram of a distribution system showing a service line and water main
Source: An EPA OIG image.
Lead Contamination and SDWA
Drinking water distribution systems include water main pipes and service line
pipes (Figure 1). These systems may contain lead or copper components.
Drinking water leaving a treatment plant may be generally free of lead, but the
water can corrode pipes in the distribution system and plumbing materials in
homes, and release lead into drinking water. For additional information, see the
EPA's "Sources of Lead in Drinking Water" factsheet.
In children, exposure to lead
can cause serious health
problems, including the
potential for developmental
disorders, lower IQs and
delinquent behavior. In adults,
lead exposure may result in
poor pregnancy outcomes,
dementia and cardiovascular
disease.
In 1991, the EPA issued the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR),
40 CFR § 141.80 etseq., to
minimize lead and copper in
Reduce Your Exposure to Lead
in Drinking Water at Home
Use only cold water for drinking, cooking and
making baby formula. Boiling water does not
remove lead from water.
Regularly clean your faucet's screen (also known
as an aerator).
Consider using a water filter certified to remove
lead and know when it is time to replace the filter.
Before drinking, flush your pipes by running your
tap, taking a shower, doing laundry or a load of
dishes.
Source: The EPA's Basic Information About Lead m
Drinking Water webpage.
18-P-0221
3
-------
drinking water.4 Lead and copper are only two of over 90 contaminants regulated
under the SDWA. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations establish
either a maximum contaminant level (a health-based standard), or a treatment
technique requirement.
There is no safe level of lead in drinking water. However, the LCR established the
treatment technique requirements to minimize exposure. These requirements
compel drinking water systems to conduct tap sampling for lead and copper to
determine the treatment techniques and other steps systems must take to reduce
exposure. To adhere to the LCR, utilities must conduct monitoring for lead and
copper in water systems, and demonstrate that they comply with monitoring and
treatment technique requirements.5 Figure 2 illustrates key components of the
LCR relevant to the city of Flint.
Figure 2: Key components of the LCR relevant to Flint
Public
education
Periodic
monitoring
Corrosion
control
testing and
adjustment
Lead
service line
replacement
Remedial treatment
requirements
Lead tap
monitoring
No exceedance
Lead exceedance
Action level = 15 parts per billion (ppb)
Source: An EPA diagram modified by the OIG. The red outline boxes are discussed in sections below.
4 Some LCR requirements vary based on the water system size and type. Since Flint is a large community system,
this report discusses the requirements for large community systems—those serving more than 50,000.
5 In 1986, Congress amended the SDWA to prohibit the use of pipes, solder or flux that are not "lead free" in public
water systems, or in plumbing where facilities provide water for human consumption. In 1996, Congress further
amended the SDWA by prohibiting the sale of any pipe or plumbing fixture that was not lead free, except for a pipe
used in manufacturing or industrial processing. In 2000, the EPA published revisions to the LCR to address
implementation issues arising from legal challenges to the 1991 rule. The revisions also streamlined and reduced the
monitoring and reporting burden. In 2007, the EPA revised the LCR to enhance implementation in the areas of
monitoring, treatment, customer awareness and lead service line replacement.
18-P-0221
4
-------
Treatment Technique Requirements: Corrosion Control
(40 CFR § 141.81 and § 141.82)
The LCR requires community water systems to optimize corrosion control.
Utilities have optimized corrosion control when the treatment method that
they use has minimized the potential for corrosion in the distribution system,
thus minimizing lead contamination. The rule does not prescribe specific
corrosi on control treatments. Instead, there is a range of methods that water
systems can use.
When the LCR was
implemented in 1991, it
established timelines for
the installation of corrosion
control treatment and for
subsequent monitoring.
The LCR required large
water systems to install
optimal corrosion control
treatment by January 1,
1997, unless they qualified
for certain exemptions.6
One exemption was to
demonstrate low lead levels
at consumers' taps, where
water systems monitor drinking water over two consecutive 6-month periods.
Water systems were required to show whether lead concentrations fell at or
below 5 ppb (the PQL) between the entrance to the distribution system and
consumers' taps. If results exceeded 5 ppb, water systems were required to
establish and optimize corrosion control treatment.
According to the LCR, if a water system has optimized
its corrosion control treatment and plans to change
water sources or drinking water treatment methods, the
state must review and approve plans before the change
can be implemented.
The LCR requires states to review and approve the
optimized corrosion control treatment for all systems.
The LCR also requires states to designate optimal
water quality parameters intended to represent the
conditions under which systems must operate their
corrosion control treatment. The rule requires that
6 The exemption criteria are specified in 40 CFR § 141.81(b)(2)-(b)(3).
LCR Terms
Action level of 15 ppb: Utilities are required
to monitor so that lead concentrations in the
90th percentile do not exceed the federal
action level of 15 ppb.
Water quality parameters: State-approved
measures that are used to determine whether
corrosion control is working within the
distribution system.
Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) of
5 ppb: Level of lead concentration in a large
system where the LCR required optimal
corrosion control treatment.
residences during the emergency response.
(EPA OIG photo, taken April 2016)
18-P-0221
5
-------
water systems measure against those parameters, which are typically set as
ranges or minimums. Without set water quality parameters, a state does not
have a reliable method for gauging the adequacy of corrosion control
treatment or determining compliance.
The LCR allows the EPA to intervene if a state fails to approve appropriate
treatment plans. The rule authorizes EPA regional administrators to review
state treatment determinations and issue alternate federal determinations, if the
EPA finds the following:
• A state has failed to issue a treatment determination
by the applicable deadlines,
• A state has abused its discretion in a substantial
number of cases or in cases affecting a substantial
population, or
• The technical aspects of a state's determination would
be indefensible in an expected federal enforcement
action taken against a system.
Tap Water Monitoring for Lead (40 CFR § 141.86)
After a system has optimized corrosion control, the LCR requires water
systems to monitor for changes in lead concentration on a regular basis. These
tests verify that when drinking water reaches the
consumer, lead concentrations do not exceed the
federal action level of 15 ppb in more than 10
percent of homes.8
Lead service lines showing inner surface without
any coating from corrosion control treatment (left),
with coating fright), and fully corroded (middle).
(EPA photo)
To conduct the monitoring, the LCR requires
utilities to identify the highest-priority sampling
sites, such as single-family homes served by lead
service lines. The highest-priority sampling sites
are identified as "tier 1" locations and, for Flint,
constitute the entire sampling pool for regular
testing.
The LCR instructs water systems to regularly report tap water sample results
from tier 1 sites. Water systems monitor tap water on a semiannual, annual or
triennial basis to verify lead contamination does not exceed the federal action
level. When a large water system exceeds that level in more than 10 percent of
home tap water samples, the water system must provide public education on
7 40 CFR § 142.19 provides the procedures for the EPA Administrator's review of state determinations and issuance
of a federal order.
8 40 CFR § 141.80(c)(1) describes this as the "90th percentile" lead level exceeding 0.015 milligrams per liter.
18-P-0221
6
-------
lead, remove a percentage of lead service lines, and conduct source water
monitoring.
Public Education (40 CFR § 141.85)
The LCR requires systemwide public education when tap-monitoring results
show that a system exceeds the federal action level for lead. There are also
supplemental lead-monitoring requirements for all water systems to provide
consumer notices to those whose taps were tested. The purpose of public
education is to inform consumers about lead results, the health effects of lead,
and steps the public can take to reduce exposure.
Water systems must submit all written public education materials to the state
prior to releasing the information to the public.
Lead Service Line Replacement (40 CFR § 141.84)
In the event of a lead action level exceedance, the LCR requires water systems
to identify the number of lead service lines present in the distribution system,
and requires water systems to meet the minimum 7 percent replacement rate
through either physically replacing lead service lines or individually testing
them to demonstrate their lead concentrations are below 15 ppb. However, if
the system returns to a lead level below the action level after two monitoring
periods, the utility is not required to continue removing lead service lines. In
addition, if a system is in violation of 40 CFR § 141.81 for failure to install
corrosion control treatment, the state can require the system to commence lead
service line replacement until the system is below the lead action level for two
consecutive monitoring periods.
Emergency Administrative Order and Amendment
On January 21, 2016, OECA issued an Emergency
Administrative Order requiring the state of
Michigan, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and the city of
Flint to take steps to reduce lead contamination.
EPA managers monitoring compliance with the
order determined that while the state of Michigan,
the MDEQ, and the city of Flint made a good-faith
effort to comply, the EPA did not see progress in
completing some of the required actions. In
November 2016, EPA Region 5 issued its First
Amendment to Emergency Administrative Order.
The amendment set new goals and allowed the city
to develop milestones it could achieve.
A bottled water distribution site in Flint.
(EPA OIG photo, taken April 2016)
18-P-0221
7
-------
Subsequently, OECA and EPA Region 5 have overseen the respondents'
compliance with both the order and the amendment to the order (Appendix B).
According to Region 5, the EPA worked with the city and the MDEQ to do the
following:
• Oversee treatment plant operations.
• Provide outreach to impacted residents.
• Mobilize the largest sampling effort in EPA history.
• Address technical problems through a cross-agency expert task force.
• Hold open-house information sessions for residents.
• Hold science summits with federal, state and local scientists and
experts.
The EPA maintains a list of activities
and progress updates for the order and its
amendment on the agency's Flint Drinking
Water Documents webpage. The MDEQ
reported that by December 2017, lead
levels in Flint's drinking water had fallen
below the federal action level of 15 ppb.
However, the EPA and local authorities
continued to recommend that residents
filter their water for drinking and cooking.
As of May 2018, the state of Michigan
and the city of Flint have not completed
all actions in the order and amendment.
Please see Appendix B for status of order and amendment actions.
Currently, the city and state are working to replace lead service lines.
Through its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program, the EPA
awarded Michigan an average of $4.2 million annually to fund over 11,000 water
systems in the state.9 According to the EPA, as of June 2016, the agency spent
more than half of that amount (over $3 million) on the Flint drinking water
contamination incident in the first 6 months after the order was issued (Figure 3).
The state of Michigan provided approximately $250 million to address problems
in Flint's water system, and to increase the city's technical and managerial
capacity.
Boiling YOUR Water
DOES NOT REMOVE LEAD
A billboard in the city of Flint. (EPA OIG photo,
taken April 2016)
9 Average of funding awards in FYs 2011-2016.
18-P-0221
8
-------
Figure 3: Comparison of Michigan's statewide water system funding and Flint
contamination spending
• 11,000 water systems in Michigan
• $4.2 million average annual funding to Michigan
• $3 million+ spent on Flint water
contamination from Jan.-June 2016
Source: An EPA OIG image.
In March 2017, the EPA awarded an additional $100 million10 to the MDEQ for
Flint water infrastructure upgrades, which required a state match of 20 percent or
$20 million. In September 2017, the MDEQ reported that combined federal and
state spending to address the contamination totaled more than $400 million.11
Challenges with the LCR
Assuring public health under the LCR presents
challenges. A key challenge is that the LCR is
based on treatment, not health-based
requirements. The EPA has recognized the need
to clarify and strengthen the rule, and the agency
is in the process of revising it.
An EPA employee collects a water sample
to send to a laboratory for analysis during
response efforts. (EPA photo)
In October 2016, the EPA's Office of Water
released the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
White Paper for the purpose of keeping the
public informed about options being considered
by the agency. The report suggests that proposed revisions to the rule should
include technology-driven and health-based elements to avoid high lead levels
and health risks. Some of the elements under consideration include the following:
• Incorporating health-based goals for lead to guide actions and
communicate risk at the household level.
10 EPA press release: EPA Awards $100 Million to Michizcm for Flint Water Infrastructure Upgrades
(March 17, 2017).
11 In addition to the EPA, other federal agencies also provided support and funding.
18-P-0221
9
-------
• Implementing and enforcing the mechanism for lead service line removal
programs.
• Requiring all systems to implement corrosion control treatment, regardless
of system size, tap sampling results, or presence of lead service lines.
• Using "point of use" filters when addressing risks from lead and copper at
the household level.
• Clarifying and strengthening sampling requirements, reducing uncertainty,
and ensuring broader and more consistent proactive application of
corrosion control treatment.
• Increasing the transparency associated with implementing the LCR by
publicly posting the locations of lead service lines and sampling results.
• Strengthening public education requirements in the LCR.
Management Controls for Government Programs
All federal agencies must establish certain standards, policies and practices to
create a sound internal control structure for their programs. Internal controls help
to prevent and detect errors, fraud and noncompliance with provisions of laws and
regulations. Agencies and individual federal managers are required to develop
internal controls for programs to achieve results and comply with applicable laws
and regulations.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) developed internal control
standards in 1999 (revised in 2014) to assist agencies in achieving their objectives.
The standards focus on effective internal control through communication, risk
assessment and oversight. The EPA instructed managers to use these standards in
the agency's EPA Order, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control (2008).
Likewise, the EPA's 1
-------
Responsible Offices
EPA Region 5 drinking water program staff and managers primarily oversee
SDWA implementation in regional primacy states, including Michigan. Two
headquarters offices help EPA regions implement the SDWA:
• The Office of Water (OW) provides programmatic and implementation
guidance.
• The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) advises
EPA regions about enforcing SDWA provisions.
Prior Reports
EPA OIG Report No. 17-P-0004. titled Management Alert: Drinking Water
Contamination in Flint, Michigan, Demonstrates a Need to Clarify EPA Authority
to Issue Emergency Orders to Protect the Public, was issued October 20, 2016. The
report noted that the EPA needs to clarify for its employees how its emergency
authority can and should be used to intervene in a public health threat. The OIG
recommended that OECA update the EPA's 1991 guidance on SDWA § 1431
emergency authority. We also recommended that OECA require all relevant EPA
drinking water, and water enforcement program management and staff, attend
training on SDWA § 1431 authority. The agency agreed with the recommendations
and corrective actions are in progress.
GAO Report No. GAP-17-424. titled Drinking Water: Additional Data and
Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule,
is a congressionally requested report dated September 2017. The report found that
available EPA data reported by states show that of the approximately 68,000 water
systems subject to the LCR, at least 10 percent had at least one open violation of
the rule. However, these and other data are not complete. GAO made three
recommendations, including one recommendation that the EPA require states to
report data on lead pipes, and develop a statistical analysis on the likelihood of
LCR violations to supplement the EPA's current oversight. The EPA agreed with
the GAO's recommendations.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 through April 2018,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based
on our audit objectives.
18-P-0221
11
-------
We reviewed the laws, regulations, policies, procedures and guidance related to
the SDWA program. At EPA headquarters, we interviewed the former EPA
Administrator; the former EPA Deputy Administrator; and staff and officials from
the EPA's Office of General Counsel, the Office of Water, and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. We also interviewed EPA Region 5
staff and officials, including the former Regional Administrator (who served until
January 2016), and the former acting Regional Administrator (who served from
January 2016 through January 2018). Further, we interviewed MDEQ Office of
Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance personnel, former and current
employees of the city of Flint, residents of Flint, and external experts. We also
reviewed documents from the EPA and the MDEQ.
18-P-0221
12
-------
Chapter 2
Circumstances Leading to Flint Drinking
Water Contamination and EPA Emergency
Administrative Order
Under the MDEQ's oversight, the Flint water treatment plant did not adhere to
two LCR requirements: (1) identify and maintain a pool of tier 1 sampling sites,
and (2) install and maintain corrosion control treatment throughout the system.
State and local decisions to not adhere to these LCR requirements led to the
corrosion of the Flint distribution system, which exposed residents to lead in their
drinking water.
Inventory of Required Tier 1 Locations Was Not Maintained
The city of Flint did not develop or maintain accurate records of lead service line
locations to identify tier 1 sampling sites. Primacy states like Michigan must
require water systems to collect and maintain lead service line information, in
accordance with the LCR.12 Without this information, Flint could not prioritize its
sampling efforts to collect water samples where higher levels of lead
contamination were most likely to occur, as required by the LCR.
The January 2016 EPA Emergency Administrative Order required Flint to provide
the agency with the city's existing inventory of homes with lead service lines.
When the city submitted the inventory, the EPA found that it was not complete or
accurate. However, Flint did not update its inventory of lead service lines until
August 2016. EPA Region 5 staff stated that other cities face similar challenges
with inventories for lead service lines in their water systems. The EPA identified
this as a nationwide weakness in its October 2016 Lead and Copper Ride
Revisions White Paper.
Corrosion Control Treatment Was Not Maintained
The MDEQ did not require Flint's water system to maintain corrosion control
treatment when Flint changed water sources in April 2014. According to EPA
Region 5, the MDEQ concluded that Flint's change in source water would require
Flint to revert to the LCR provision that required the water system to conduct tests
to determine whether corrosion control treatment was necessary.13 To do this,
MDEQ personnel instructed Flint system staff to conduct monitoring during two
consecutive 6-month periods to determine whether corrosion control treatment
was necessary.
12 40 CFR § 141.86(1); 40 CFR § 141.91.
13 40 CFR § 141.81(b)(3). EPA Region 5 learned about the MDEQ's conclusion in April 2015.
18-P-0221
13
-------
EPA Region 5 disagreed with the MDEQ's interpretation. The LCR treats systems
(such as Flint's) that change their source water or treatment as an existing system.
As a result, Region 5 concluded that Flint's system was an existing system with a
new source. Therefore, under the LCR, the city needed to maintain continuous
corrosion control treatment.
In January 2015, results from Flint's
first round of testing found a 90th
percentile lead concentration of 6 ppb.
However, the MDEQ did not instruct
Flint to install corrosion control
treatment (per the LCR) but instead
required an additional 6-month round
of sampling. In July 2015, results from
the second round of 6-month tests
showed 901h percentile lead
concentrations had increased
to 11 ppb.
At that time, EPA Region 5 and the MDEQ reached an agreement to require the
Flint water system to begin corrosion control treatment as soon as possible. In
August 2015, the MDEQ required Flint to select a corrosion control treatment (no
later than January 2016).
In August and September 2015, a private researcher conducted testing and
identified the following:
• 110 homes sampled with lead levels over 5 ppb.
• 43 homes sampled with lead levels over 15 ppb.
• 7 homes sampled with lead levels over 100 ppb.
• 1 home sampled with a lead level over 1,000 ppb.
In September 2015, a local doctor issued a study showing an increase in the blood
lead levels of children living in Flint.
In October 2015, instead of installing corrosion control treatment, Flint's water
system returned to purchasing drinking water from the Great Lakes Water
Authority (formerly called the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department), which
already included corrosion control treatment. At the time of this change, almost a
year-and-a-half of exposure to improperly treated water had damaged the city's
drinking water infrastructure, and lead concentrations continued to rise. In
December 2015, the MDEQ reported that Flint began supplementing Detroit
water with additional corrosion control treatment. However, due to the damage
done to the Flint distribution system, the lead levels in drinking water did not fall
below the federal action level until late 2016.
chemistry at the Flint water treatment plant.
(EPA OIG photo)
18-P-0221
14
-------
Conclusion
The MDEQ did not enforce LCR provisions that require Flint's water system to
keep an accurate and complete inventory of tier 1 sample site locations, or
maintain corrosion control treatment. As a primacy agency, the MDEQ bore
responsibility for advising Flint's water system staff about the drinking water
source change and meeting SDWA standards. However, MDEQ personnel
misinterpreted the law, which led them to provide incorrect advice to Flint on
corrosion control treatment requirements. This resulted in infrastructure damage
and the prolonged exposure of Flint residents to lead in their drinking water.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and the Assistant Administrator for Water:
1. Establish controls to annually verify that states are monitoring compliance
with all Lead and Copper Rule requirements, including accurately
identifying tier 1 sampling sites and maintaining continuous corrosion
control treatment.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
2. Revise the Lead and Copper Rule to improve the effectiveness of
monitoring and corrosion control treatment protocols.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The agency provided a coordinated response from EPA Region 5, the OW and
OECA. The offices provided planned corrective actions in their response, and
additional clarifications during a June 5, 2018, meeting with the OIG.
OECA and the OW agreed with Recommendation 1; however, the offices did not
provide acceptable corrective actions to address the recommendation. In their
original response, the offices stated that they would develop metrics related to
LCR implementation and incorporate the metrics into the regional protocol for
conducting annual PWSS program reviews by September 30, 2019. The two offices
also would implement a national oversight approach for drinking water programs
by June 30, 2019.
The EPA provided supplemental information in the June 5, 2018, meeting with the
OIG. In that meeting, and in subsequent correspondence on June 13, 2018, OECA
and the OW revised their response to state that they agree on the value of national
oversight for compliance monitoring and enforcement of the EPA's Drinking
Water Program, but they said it is vital that they evaluate and develop it in a
collaborative manner with their state partners. The offices planned to work with
18-P-0221
15
-------
states to develop an approach or a pilot for implementing a national compliance
monitoring and enforcement oversight program for drinking water, as appropriate,
by June 2019.
The OIG does not agree that developing a pilot or approach constitutes establishing
annual controls, per the recommendation language. The OIG did not accept this
response as meeting the intent of Recommendation 1, and this recommendation
remains unresolved.
The OW agreed with Recommendation 2. To address this recommendation, the
OW will continue to evaluate input received from state, local and tribal partners,
and evaluate the best available peer-reviewed science to ensure that the revised rule
reflects the best ways to improve public health protection. The OW plans to
complete this action by February 28, 2019. Based on the response and
clarifications, the EPA provided acceptable planned corrective actions and
completion dates for Recommendation 2.
Region 5, OECA and the OW provided supplemental technical comments that
the OIG incorporated as appropriate. The EPA's coordinated response is found in
Appendix C.
18-P-0221
16
-------
Chapter 3
EPA Region 5's Management Weaknesses
Delayed Federal Intervention
The EPA retains oversight and enforcement authorities to provide assurance that
primacy states comply with the SDWA. However, timely oversight interventions
rely on effective management systems that govern how and when the agency
should intervene. EPA Region 5 did not manage its drinking water oversight
program in a way that facilitated effective oversight and timely intervention in
Flint. EPA Region 5 did not:
• Establish clear roles and responsibilities with the MDEQ.
• Communicate clearly and effectively.
• Use effective risk assessment protocols.
• Proactively use available SDWA authorities and oversight tools to
intervene in Michigan's drinking water program.
These weaknesses limited Region 5's ability to monitor, adapt and respond to
changing situations in Michigan and the city of Flint.
Region 5 and MDEQ Did Not Establish Clear Oversight Roles and
Responsibilities
The EPA retains the authority and responsibility to oversee states with primacy
over their drinking water programs. The EPA is empowered and required to
intervene when states do not fulfill their responsibilities. However, EPA Region 5
staff and managers did not establish clear roles and responsibilities needed to
foster a constructive federal-state relationship with the MDEQ's drinking water
program staff. As previously mentioned, state primacy agreements obligate states
to implement the SDWA in a manner that is at least as stringent as federal
requirements. Further, the EPA's National Program Manager Guidance directs
EPA regions to "ensure that primacy agencies fulfill the enforcement conditions
of their primacy agreements" under the SDWA.
EPA Region 5 aimed to foster a collaborative relationship with the MDEQ.
The region's focus on maintaining a partnership influenced how Region 5 staff
conducted oversight and enforcement in the state. In the case of the MDEQ, this
partnership limited effective EPA oversight. While Region 5 needs to work with
states to accomplish the mission of the agency, the region also needs to establish
clear roles and responsibilities so that both the MDEQ and the region know how
and when the EPA may intervene to implement and enforce the SDWA.
18-P-0221
17
-------
As a result of this relationship, Region 5 managers did not use their knowledge
about the MDEQ's incomplete implementation of the SDWA when assessing the
risks in Flint. For example, in 2010, an EPA contractor reviewed the MDEQ's
drinking water program and identified MDEQ implementation deficiencies.14 The
review noted that the MDEQ disinvested from 10 SDWA requirements, which
Michigan designated as temporary and non-health related.15 However, the review
concluded that the MDEQ should reconsider these disinvestments because at least
one of them could impact public health. The contractor recommended that the
MDEQ implement all of the SDWA requirements, as noted in the following
quote:
MDEQ should reconsider the disinvestment activities. MDEQ's
actions and policies should be as stringent as federally mandated
rules and policies. All instances where the federal rules were not
correctly implemented were treated as discrepancies.
In the 2010 report, Region 5 responded that the disinvestments were intended to
be temporary and only include nonpublic-health-related primacy activities.
Region 5 said these disinvestments were allowed because the region viewed these
disinvestments as an "innovative way for states to continue to ensure safe
drinking water is provided to the public, even as states are struggling with
diminishing resources."
Despite the recommendation from the contractor, these disinvestments continued
and increased to 11 by 2015. Region 5 managers told us that being informed
about implementation deficiencies in advance was a "proactive" approach to
oversight. They maintained that disinvestments were more administrative and
generally did not have a direct public health impact.
The MDEQ continued these disinvestments through 2015, and the OIG
concluded that the disinvestments did have potential public health effects.
However, Region 5 did not intervene to ensure that the MDEQ's drinking water
program met minimum federal standards. It was not until 2016, while under the
emergency order, that the MDEQ discontinued the majority of the
disinvestments.16
In 2017, Region 5 began requiring states to submit implementation plans to
describe how and when they would begin implementation of any primacy
activities the states could not fully implement at that time. Table 1 contains
examples of MDEQ disinvestments and OIG analysis of potential effects.
14 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Public Water System Supervision Program, Final Report: Program
Review for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau. August 30, 2010.
15 A disinvestment is a means to temporarily forfeit oversight functions required to implement the SDWA.
Due to limited resources, the MDEQ proposed, and EPA Region 5 approved, disinvestments on an annual basis.
16 In 2016, an EPA manager told us that the MDEQ continued to be disinvested in three areas noted in the 2010
review.
18-P-0221
18
-------
Table 1: Examples of MDEQ disinvestments and potential effects
SDWA requirement
Disinvestment
Potential effect
All water systems must
report to the state the
results of all tap samples
on a defined schedule.
MDEQ would no longer issue
violations for late reporting of
monitoring results.
By not issuing these
violations, identification of
contamination could be
delayed, further prolonging
consumer exposure to
contamination.
All systems must submit I
reporting forms to the state,
including the location of
each site and the criteria
under which the site was
selected for the system's
sampling pool. Include an
explanation of why
sampling sites have
changed. I
MDEQ would no longer issue
violations for failure to submit
the LCR reporting form.
Without the LCR reporting
forms, the state could not
review information showing
whether lead sampling met
LCR requirements.
The state must require
utilities to publish annual
Consumer Confidence
Reports with specific
content requirements on a
defined schedule (reports
are public).
MDEQ would no longer issue
violations for late reporting or
insufficient content in
Consumer Confidence
Reports.
By not enforcing rules for
Consumer Confidence
Reports, the state loses a
method for providing water
system users complete and
timely reports about their
water quality.
Source: OIG analysis.
EPA and MDEQ Did Not Communicate Effectively
Communication weaknesses contributed to a delayed federal response in Flint.
For effective oversight, management needs accurate and complete information,
and clear communication. However, the communication between the EPA and the
MDEQ did not convey key information about human health risks from lead
contamination in Flint. Communication within the EPA was also problematic.
These issues limited the EPA's knowledge about risks and contributed to the
delayed federal response. For example:
• MDEQ personnel did not provide Region 5 with accurate information
regarding corrosion control treatment. In February 2015, when EPA
Region 5 staff asked about corrosion control, MDEQ personnel told them
that Flint had an optimized corrosion control program in place, that the
city conducted quarterly water quality parameter monitoring and did not
have any unusual results, and that Flint continued to meet all applicable
18-P-0221
19
-------
plant tap standards and treatment technique requirements. However, in
April 2015, the state admitted that Flint was not using corrosion control
treatment and argued that it was not required. Before that admission,
Region 5 personnel did not have key information needed to intervene.
Region 5 told us that communication with the MDEQ was frequent,
consistent and clear, but the MDEQ failed to take appropriate actions
when Region 5 consistently identified problems. According to EPA
Region 5 managers, in April 2015, the EPA voiced concerns about the
lack of corrosion control treatment to the MDEQ's Water Director.
Region 5 managers said that in June 2015 they advised the MDEQ that
the LCR required Flint to maintain consistent corrosion control treatment.
However, an MDEQ manager stated that Region 5 did not advise them
to initiate corrosion control at that point.
Region 5 stated that the length of time that it took to obtain a legal
interpretation delayed formal intervention. In a July 2015 meeting, the
EPA and the MDEQ disagreed over interpretations of LCR corrosion
control treatment requirements in Flint. The MDEQ requested, and
Region 5 program staff agreed to obtain, a legal opinion from EPA
headquarters. In August 2015, Region 5 and EPA headquarters began
discussing Flint compliance with the requirements and the MDEQ's
interpretation of those requirements.
However, headquarters personnel stated that Region 5's characterization
of the situation lacked a sense of urgency. Region 5 did not make an
official request for a headquarters' opinion until September 30, 2015.
Region 5 did not receive a legal opinion, but the region's request
ultimately resulted in a November 2015 Office of Water memo clarifying
the LCR corrosion control treatment requirements for all large water
systems.
Although the memo mentioned Flint,
it did not specifically address the
Flint situation (see green box). For
this reason, it was of limited use in
dealing with the incident in Flint.
A Region 5 official expressed
concern that states would not follow
guidance from the memo because it
lacks the authority of law. In an effort
to further clarify requirements, an
EPA official stated that headquarters
has provided training to EPA staff
with regard to the memo.
Summary of the "Lead and Copper
Rule Requirements for Optimal
Corrosion Control Treatment for
Large Drinking Water Systems"
In this November 2015 memo, the
EPA's Office of Water acknowledged
differing interpretations of the LCR.
The EPA's intent was to clarify that
the rule requires any large system to
continuously maintain corrosion
control treatment.
20
-------
Region 5 Did Not Have an Effective System for Risk Assessment
EPA Region 5 did not have effective risk assessment processes that would have
alerted the region to growing issues in Flint. An effective risk assessment system
provides the basis for responding to threats that impact human health. While
bacterial violations alone would not have signaled to the EPA that lead
contamination was occurring, the combined information available to Region 5
painted a picture of a system at risk from multiple angles.
By compiling and examining
these factors, Region 5's staff and
managers could have intervened
sooner after the source switch, as
evidence of risk grew. Instead, the
federal response was delayed while
residents continued to be exposed to
lead in their drinking water.
Risks at the State Level
In addition to the disinvestments
previously mentioned, in 2016,
EPA managers discovered that
MDEQ personnel did not establish
water quality parameters required by
the LCR.17 As stated in Chapter 1, the parameters define a range of water
chemistry constraints to protect infrastructure from corrosion. The LCR requires
water systems to use lead tap and water quality parameter sampling results to
verify corrosion control treatment programs are effective. When water samples
demonstrate that a system does not meet the parameters, violations can result.
Risks at the Local Level
Despite known economic challenges in the city, EPA Region 5 staff did not
identify Flint's source water switch as an event that could impact the city's ability
to comply with the SDWA. Beginning in May 2014, a number of problems
emerged that should have warned the agency about the risk.
i
m
31
r EPA
EPA staff reviewing lead sampling data in Flint
during emergency response efforts. (EPA photo)
17 The LCR requires that water quality parameters include measures for lead, copper. pH, alkalinity, calcium,
conductivity, orthophospliate or silica, and temperature. The EPA discovered the lack of water quality parameters in
Michigan during the agency-led program review of the state's drinking water program: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Public Water System Supervision Draft Program Review of the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality Drinking Water Program 2016.
18-P-0221
21
-------
For example, in June 2015, an EPA Region 5
scientist drafted an interim report that outlined
concerns about lead in Flint's drinking water
and the lack of corrosion control treatment.
This report indicated the potenial for serious
human health risks and recommended
potential EPA actions.
Even with this memo and other information,
a senior regional official told the Regional
Administrator for Region 5 that the region
and state were in the process of reaching an
agreement that would require Flint to
implement corrosion control treatment.
According to the Regional Administrator, the problem was not presented in a way
that conveyed the gravity of the situation. The Regional Administrator said that
no wide-spread public health issues were apparent at the time. This delayed the
EPA's formal intervention. Table 2 shows the growing evidence of risk in Flint.
Table 2: Evidence of growing risk in Flint
May 2014
• EPA Region 5 learned of Flint drinking water source switch.
• EPA Region 5 received first citizen complaints about drinking water
quality.
August
2014
• First total coliform violation occurred.
December
2014
• First total trihalornethanes violation occurred.
February
2015
• EPA Region 5 learned of elevated lead level in Flint resident's drinking
water.
• EPA Region 5 manager voiced concerns to colleagues that sampling
protocol is biasing lead results.
March
2015
• Engineering firm contracted to work on the Flint water system issued
report that recommends the addition of corrosion control treatment.
• EPA Region 5 learned that Genesee County was investigating an
increase in Legionella cases.
April 2015
• MDEQ staff member told an EPA Region 5 manager that the Flint
system does not have any corrosion control treatment.
fUNT WATER pUnt
Flint Water Treatment Plant,
(EPA OIG photo, taken April 2016)
18-P-0221
22
-------
June 2015
• EPA Region 5 learned that at least four homes had lead in drinking
water above the action level.
• EPA Region 5 manager shared interim report on high lead levels in
Flint's drinking water with an affected resident. The report was
subsequently released to the public.
Source: OiG analysis of EPA Region 5 records.
Between May 2014 and the issuance of the EPA Emergency Administrative Order
in January 2016, EPA Region 5 staff received 87 citizen complaints about
drinking water conditions in Flint. The complaints described distress about water
quality (color and odor), more specific concerns about total trihalomethanes, total
coliform and E. coli, Legionella and, ultimately, lead.
Of the complaints received before the order, 30 (34.5 percent) included concerns
about lead. Even so, Region 5 staff did not identify the volume of complaints as
indications of unusual problems in Flint's water system. Region 5 officials
responded with form letters that recommended citizens resolve their concerns
by contacting the MDEQ or Flint's water system staff. In six cases, Region 5's
response came more than a year after the citizen made the complaint. In 11 cases,
we found no documentation of any response.
In April 2016, we interviewed a sample of the
complainants. Some expressed frustration at the lack
of resoluti on of their complaints by Region 5. Staff
and managers in Region 5 did not have a system for
cataloguing and responding to citizen complaints,
nor did they use citizen complaints or the volume of
calls as indicators of problems with Flint's water
system. As a result, Region 5 could not assess the
severity of the situation, and staff were not able to
alert management to an emerging incident.
Region 5 staff and managers told us that these risk
factors individually or taken together would not have
indicated elevated lead levels. They stated, "Generally, there is little or no
correlation between citizen complaints about water and lead content." Region 5
staff said residents often complain about aesthetic concerns that are unrelated to
lead levels. Further, staff told us that aesthetic complaints are common, especially
in under-resourced water systems like Flint's.
Region 5's comments regarding citizen complaints contradict the EPA's Drinking
Water Action Plan. which was issued in November 2016 and stresses the
importance of assessing risks at the local level. Issued after the Flint crisis, the
plan states that EPA staff should do the following:
Multilingual sign directing residents to a water
distribution site in Flint. (EPA photo)
18-P-0221
23
-------
Develop priority indicators to identify troubled water systems. In a
world of limited oversight resources, it is critical the EPA and
primacy agencies become more effective at proactively directing
oversight and technical assistance resources to systems that are
most likely to face problems or risks that may adversely affect
public health. Indicators may also be used to identify systems that
are likely to be in violation, and follow-up with the appropriate
compliance assistance and enforcement response.18
Although EPA Region 5 receives drinking water complaints regularly, we believe
that complaints can serve as a critical indicator of potential problems. Instead of
referring complainants back to state and local officials to resolve, the region could
have taken a more proactive stance. Further, the volume of complaints should
have alerted Region 5 to a developing drinking water risk in Flint. A more
proactive approach could have enabled the region to respond more swiftly to the
contamination incident.
Region 5 Did Not Use Oversight and Monitoring Authorities
and Tools to Influence MDEQ
Region 5 used several tools to oversee the MDEQ's handling of contamination in
Flint. However, when those approaches did not result in swift action to protect
public health, Region 5 did not employ other SDWA authorities at its disposal to
require compliance in Flint. Most authorities were not used because regional
managers did not recognize them or deem them appropriate. Table 3 provides
examples of drinking water oversight authorities available to Region 5, and our
analysis of the region's use of those authorities. Table 4 provides examples of
oversight tools available to Region 5, and our analysis of the region's use of those
tools.
Table 3: Region 5's available oversight authorities in Flint
Authorities Region 5's use of authorities
Authority to negotiate resolution of grant issues or
impose additional conditions (such as withholding
funds) if a grantee is in noncompliance or issues
cannot be resolved.
(Authority: SDWA § 1443;
Regulation: 40 CFR § 35.115 and 2 CFR § 200.338)
.— Region 5 did not place additional
j conditions on the Michigan public water
systems supervision grant, even when
issues were identified.
Authority to issue an administrative order or
commence a civil action when the state does
not act.
(Authority: SDWA § 1414)
Region 5 did not use this authority.
18 EPA Drinking Water Action Plan, November 2016, page 8.
18-P-0221
24
-------
Authority to issue a federal corrosion control
treatment requirement when the state does not
adequately do so.
(Regulation: 40 CFR § 141.82)
0
Region 5 did not use this authority.
Emergency authority to act when a contaminant
may present an "imminent and substantial
endangerment" to human health, and the
appropriate state and local authorities have not
acted to protect public health.
(Authority: SDWA § 1431)
-~
Region 5 did not use this authority;
\ however, EPA headquarters issued an
Emergency Administrative Order on
January 20, 2016.
Authority to require information to determine
whether a system is acting in compliance with
drinking water regulations.
(Authority: SDWA § 1445)
Region 5 requested and received
' information from Michigan about
corrosion control treatment and other
issues.
Authority to revoke primacy if a state does not meet
primary enforcement requirements.
(Authority: SDWA § 1413)
-~
Region 5 did not use this authority.
Source: OIG analysis.
Table 4: Region 5's available oversight tools in Flint
Drinking water oversight tools
Region 5's use of oversight tools
Coordinate enforcement efforts.
(Guidance: EPA Office of Water National Program
Manager Guidance)
1
Region 5 conducted regular meetings.
It was during these meetings that the
) state expressed a different
interpretation from Region 5
regarding the LCR.
Provide technical and scientific support.
(Guidance: EPA Office of Water National Program
Manager Guidance)
-~ I
Region 5 provided technical assistance
that the state initially was reluctant to
' accePt- According to Region 5, the
MDEQ failed to take appropriate actions
when the region consistently identified
problems with Flint's water switch.
Receive drinking water compliance data.
(Guidance: EPA Office of Water National Program
Manager Guidance)
Region 5 received correspondence and
| reports from the MDEQ, which
uncovered compliance issues.
Use Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program
monies in support of the PWSS program to help
achieve the public health objectives of the SDWA.
(Authority: SDWA § 1452; Regulation: 40 CFR Part
35, Subpart L; Guidance: Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund Program Guidance)
Region 5 awarded Flint a grant for
) infrastructure improvements after the
2016 crisis.
Conduct compliance reviews of state programs.
(Guidance: EPA Office of Water National Program
Manager Guidance)
9
£
l Region 5 conducted 2010 and 2016
' reviews of the MDEQ's SDWA program.
Source: OIG analysis.
18-P-0221
25
-------
Region 5 senior officials told us that
the LCR limited their ability to
intervene. For example, they stated
that the rule "does not require the
primacy agency to notify and/or seek
approval from EPA for significant
changes to public water systems."
Although the LCR does not require
the EPA to be notified of the
changes, regional staff knew
of the source switch soon after it
happened. When the region was
informed—a year after the switch—
that Flint did not have corrosion
control treatment, the region could have intervened earlier to verify the changes
occurred in accordance with SDWA regulations.
Sampling results from two 6-month tests indicated the 90th percentile of the
results exceeded the 5 ppb limit at which optimized corrosion control treatment is
required, and lead concentrations increased over the course of testing. According
to Region 5 officials, these results did not alert the region to widespread problems
in Flint's water system. Flowever, if the results of these tests were combined with
other issues identified in Flint, this could have signaled problems in Flint's water
system and the region could have intervened more forcefully. For example,
Region 5 could have done the following:
• Taken enforcement action under SDWA § 1414, which would have
required Flint to install corrosion control treatment after notifying the
state.
• Issued an order under SDWA § 1431 when the region had evidence there
was "imminent and substantial endangerment" to human health, and when
the region knew the state did not act.
• Alerted Flint residents about the potential harm to public health (although
not required under the SDWA).
The Flint water crisis demonstrates that public health is not protected when EPA
regional staff—with multiple warning signs—do not use the agency's SDWA
authorities in conjunction with EPA oversight tools.
EPA staff and management at the Flint Response
Center at Kettering University in Flint. (EPA OIG
photo, taken April 2016)
18-P-0221
26
-------
Conclusion
Effective program management tools provide
a foundation for federal programs to achieve
important goals like those in the SDWA.
Oversight tools found in the SDWA are designed
to protect public health from drinking water
contamination, but they are only effective when
used.
During the Flint water crisis, Region 5 leadership
did not employ many of its SDWA authorities, as
the state continued to debate LCR requirements
and residents continued to drink potentially
contaminated water. Flint drinking water
contamination continued, in part, because
the public health protection authorities of the
SDWA were not used effectively. The EPA and
its regional offices must understand their oversight
tools and authorities, and not be reluctant to use
them to protect public health.
To understand roles and responsibilities, Region 5 should clarify its region-state
relationship with the state of Michigan. Region 5 also should establish a schedule
for periodically training drinking water program staff and managers to confirm
understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and the EPA's authorities for
intervention. To improve drinking water oversight, Region 5 should establish a
risk assessment protocol to heighten awareness, and establish control activities to
properly monitor state programs. Cognizance of roles and responsibilities, as well
as EPA authorities, is important not only for Region 5, but also for the EPA at the
national level.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 5:
3. Publicly document clear expectations, roles and responsibilities between
the EPA and the state of Michigan in an offici al document, such as a
memorandum of understanding or a supplemental primacy document.
4. Implement a system for regional drinking water staff, managers and senior
leaders, which incentivizes staff elevating and managers addressing
important and emerging issues in accordance with the EPA's "Policy on
Elevation of Critical Environmental and Public Health Issues."
Bottled water distribution in Flint
was established during response
efforts. (EPA photo)
18-P-0221
27
-------
5. Provide the public with all results from EPA reviews of Michigan's Safe
Drinking Water Act program, and track the progress of identified
corrective actions.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and the Assistant Administrator for Water:
6. Provide regular training for EPA drinking water staff, managers and senior
leaders on Safe Drinking Water Act tools and authorities; state and agency
roles and responsibilities; and any Safe Drinking Water Act amendments or
Lead and Copper Rule revisions.
7. Implement a system to identify management risks in state drinking water
programs, including elements such as atypical events, emerging public
health concerns, environmental justice concerns and public health analyses.
8. Create a system that tracks citizen complaints and gathers information on
emerging issues. The system should assess the risk associated with the
complaints, including efficient and effective resolution.
9. Improve oversight by establishing a clear and credible escalation policy for
EPA intervention in states. The policy should provide steps the EPA will
take when states do not act.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA provided a coordinated response from Region 5, the OW and OECA.
They provided planned corrective actions in their response, and provided additional
clarifications in a June 5, 2018, meeting with the OIG. Based on the coordinated
response and additional clarifications, the EPA provided acceptable planned
corrective actions and completion dates for Recommendations 3 through 9.
Region 5 agreed with Recommendations 3, 4 and 5. For Recommendation 3,
Region 5 will add clear roles and expectations, and post the annual Michigan
PWSS program work plan and end-of-year evaluation on the EPA's website so
that the information is available to the public. The projected completion date is
October 1, 2018.
To address Recommendation 4, by October 31, 2018, Region 5 plans to incentivize
and provide midyear and end-of-year feedback to staff, managers and senior leaders
on elevating and addressing issues of concern. To address Recommendation 5,
Region 5 noted that the 2010 and 2016 Michigan Drinking Water Program Review
reports and the FY 2010 through FY 2016 End-of-Year Evaluation reports are
currently available to the public online. They also plan to finalize a corrective
action plan that stems from the 2016 Program Review Report and post this plan
18-P-0221
28
-------
online by September 30, 2018, and provide updates on progress by April 30 and
September 30 each year thereafter.
OECA and the OW agreed with Recommendations 6 through 9. To address
Recommendation 6, the EPA has been providing training on the LCR's optimal
corrosion control treatment and optimal water quality parameter requirements.
The workshops provide a review of LCR requirements and emphasize the tools
and authorities drinking water programs can leverage to implement the
requirements more effectively. The training has been delivered through in-person
workshops at all EPA regions, as well as through special conference sessions.
Since the inaugural workshop in FY 2016, the training has reached approximately
1,300 drinking water professionals (staff and managers) from federal and state
drinking water programs, technical assistance providers and water utilities.
Training was completed on May 31, 2018, and training needs will be reassessed
by September 30, 2019. OECA and the OW also stated the training will be
provided to senior leaders.
To address Recommendation 7, OECA and the OW initiated a work group with
participants from both offices and EPA regions. This work group will identify
ways to use drinking water data and other information to identify water systems
that present, or are likely to present, a significant risk to public health. The work
group will develop procedures and strategies by December 31, 2018.
To address Recommendation 8, OECA and the OW committed to either enhancing
an existing system, or developing a new system to track and resolve citizen
complaints by September 30, 2019.
For Recommendation 9, a work group including OECA, the OW and EPA regions
will develop procedures and strategies to provide timely and effective EPA
intervention where a state's response to risks is insufficient to protect human
health. The EPA plans to make a policy decision by July 31, 2019.
Region 5, OECA and the OW provided supplemental technical comments that the
OIG incorporated as appropriate. The EPA's coordinated response is found in
Appendix C.
18-P-0221
29
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
15 Establish controls to annually verify that states are monitoring
compliance with all Lead and Copper Rule requirements,
including accurately identifying tier 1 sampling sites and
maintaining continuous corrosion control treatment.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance,
and the
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Planned
Completion
Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
15 Revise the Lead and Copper Rule to improve the effectiveness
of monitoring and corrosion control treatment protocols.
Assistant Administrator
for Water
2/28/19
27 Publicly document clear expectations, roles and responsibilities
between the EPA and the state of Michigan in an official
document, such as a memorandum of understanding or a
supplemental primacy document.
Regional Administrator,
Region 5
10/1/18
27 Implement a system for regional drinking water staff, managers
and senior leaders, which incentivizes staff elevating and
managers addressing important and emerging issues in
accordance with the EPA's "Policy on Elevation of Critical
Environmental and Public Health Issues."
Regional Administrator,
Region 5
10/31/18
28 Provide the public with all results from EPA reviews of
Michigan's Safe Drinking Water Act program, and track the
progress of identified corrective actions.
Regional Administrator,
Region 5
9/30/18
28 Provide regular training for EPA drinking water staff, managers
and senior leaders on Safe Drinking Water Act tools and
authorities; state and agency roles and responsibilities; and any
Safe Drinking Water Act amendments or Lead and Copper Rule
revisions.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance,
and the
Assistant Administrator
for Water
9/30/19
28 Implement a system to identify management risks in state R Assistant Administrator for 12/31/18
drinking water programs, including elements such as atypical Enforcement and
events, emerging public health concerns, environmental justice Compliance Assurance,
concerns and public health analyses. and the
Assistant Administrator
for Water
28 Create a system that tracks citizen complaints and gathers
information on emerging issues. The system should assess the
risk associated with the complaints, including efficient and
effective resolution.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance,
and the
Assistant Administrator
for Water
9/30/19
18-P-0221
30
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Potential
Planned Monetary
Rec. Page Completion Benefits
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date (In $000s)
9 28 Improve oversight by establishing a clear and credible escalation R Assistant Administrator for 7/31/19
policy for EPA intervention in states. The policy should provide Enforcement and
steps the EPA will take when states do not act. Compliance Assurance,
and the
Assistant Administrator
for Water
C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
18-P-0221
31
-------
Appendix A
Timeline of Key Events
Date
Event
Pre-2014
1967
Flint switched from the Flint River as its primary water supply source to
Lake Huron water supplied by Detroit.
2014
April 17
The Flint water system water quality manager tells the MDEQ that if
drinking water from the Flint River is distributed within the next couple of
weeks, it will be against his direction.
April 25
City of Flint switched from purchasing water from Detroit to using the Flint
River as a water source and using the Flint plant for treatment.
April 30
The MDEQ requires Flint to conduct two 6-month rounds of monitoring for
lead and copper (July-December 2014 and January-June 2015) to
determine whether corrosion control treatment is necessary.
May
Region 5 staff member first learns about Flint's source water switch from an
MDEQ employee. He provided analysis that lead levels were in compliance
when leaving the plant.
May 15
First record of citizen complaint to Region 5 after the change in water
source. The complaint was about the poor quality of Flint's drinking water.
June 17
An MDEQ staff member emails a Flint water treatment plant operator to
confirm that no orthophosphate (a corrosion inhibitor) is to be added so no
monitoring is necessary.
July 1
Flint begins first 6-month monitoring period for lead and copper.
August
City of Flint violates the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) for E. coli bacteria and total coliform. The city issues a boil
advisory on August 15.
Aug. 15
Flint increases flushing of water and boosts chlorine disinfectant use.
Oct. 17
Genesee County Health Department expresses concerns about a
Legionellosis outbreak and possible connection to water supply.
Dec. 16
The MDEQ notifies Flint of initial quarterly violation of SDWA Disinfection
Byproducts (total trihalomethanes) requirements. Subsequent notices of
violations were issued in March and June 2015.
18-P-0221
32
-------
Date
Event
Dec. 30
Flint completes its first 6-month round of lead monitoring with results above
the PQL of 5ppb.
2015
Jan. 1
Flint begins the second 6-month monitoring period for lead and copper.
Jan.12
Detroit offers to reconnect Flint's water system to its water
system and waive the $4 million connection fee. Flint declines the offer
on January 29, 2015.
Feb. 10
Genesee County Health Department epidemiologist consults outside
experts about 47 Legionellosis cases, and a possible connection with the
Flint water system.
Feb. 16
Flint posts its Flint water frequently asked questions, and states that Flint
water is safe to drink.
Feb. 18
Lead levels of 104 ppb found in tap water of a Flint resident's home.
Feb. 25
The EPA assigns an EPA disinfection by-products expert to participate on
Flint's Technical Advisory Committee.
Feb. 26
Region 5 staff member receives a call from a Flint resident regarding high
lead levels in the water in her home. The resident said the city of Flint and
the MDEQ attributed it to premise plumbing, but the resident has plastic
pipes in her home.
Region 5 notifies the MDEQ of high lead levels in tap water of Flint resident.
Test results show lead levels at 104 ppb. The MDEQ advises Flint to collect
a follow-up sample from the resident's home.
The sentiment at MDEQ staff discussions: Flint is not above the 90th
percentile of 15 ppb for lead, so "not sure why Region 5 (EPA) sees this
one sample as such a big deal."
Feb. 26-27
Region 5 scientist emails various EPA staff members, an expert from the
EPA's Office of Research and Development, and the MDEQ to inquire
about the type of corrosion control treatment (CCT) now used in Flint.
Feb. 27
MDEQ manager informs Region 5 that Flint has an optimized corrosion
control program. He also shares the results of the first 6-month round of
testing to determine whether the system needs CCT. The 90th percentile of
the results were 6 ppb, which is over the PQL of 5 ppb. The result is an
indication that CCT is necessary.
Region 5 scientist voices concerns to EPA colleagues that Flint's lead-
sampling protocol (pre-flushing) is biasing lead results toward the low side.
18-P-0221
33
-------
Date
Event
Mar. 3
A follow-up sample of tap water collected by the city of Flint had a lead level
of 397 ppb at the same Flint residence where the lead level had been 104
ppb when a sample was first taken on February 18.
Mar. 10
Region 5 staff member emails the MDEQ saying that she has been
inundated with citizen emails referred to her from the White House about
Flint's water quality problems.
Mar. 26
EPA learns that Genesee County is investigating an increase in Legionella
cases.
April 7
Region 5 scientist emails other Region 5 and EPA Office of Research and
Development staff saying Flint needs help, and the system needs to be
evaluated. The city's practice of pre-flushing ahead of collecting samples
results in an inadequate capture of lead released in the service lines.
April 24
An MDEQ staff member tells Region 5 scientist that the Flint system does
not have any CCT.
April 25
Region 5 scientist notifies MDEQ staff that CCT should have been
maintained with the source switch. Region 5 scientist also tells the MDEQ
that lead levels may be much higher than the compliance results indicate
due to lack of CCT and pre-flushing.
April 27
Region 5 scientist meets with Flint resident to review internal plumbing, and
provide sampling bottles to take water samples for lead in the resident's
home.
May 1
The MDEQ informs Region 5 that it had not made a formal decision as to
whether the city meets the exemption criteria for corrosion control
treatment. The MDEQ also reasoned that since Flint would be switching
source water in another year to the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA),
requiring the study at this time would be of little value.
May 6
EPA Region 5 visits a Flint resident's home (see Feb. 18, March 3 and April
27 entries) to collect pipe samples from the service line. Three sections of
the service line were extracted and sent to Virginia Tech University for
analysis. The EPA leaves sample bottles for the resident to collect
sequential samples following the expected replacement of the service line.
EPA Region 5 collects a set of sequential samples from two additional Flint
residences, one had low lead levels, the other high lead levels.
The city of Flint tests the water at two more homes. Both homes had high
lead results.
18-P-0221
34
-------
Date
Event
May 11
Region 5 staff member asks an EPA Office of Research and Development
expert about the value of starting CCT immediately. The expert notes that
Flint has multiple problems, and CCT should be integrated into a long-term
plan.
May 13
Region 5 scientist samples the Flint residence (see Feb. 26 and Mar. 8
entries) after disconnection from an old service line. Results show that
water is below the action level.
June 10
During a conference call, Region 5 tells the MDEQ that Flint is likely to need
corrosion control treatment, and the expertise of the Office of Research and
Development should be used to avoid problems moving forward.
June 24
Region 5 had information that at least four homes in Flint had lead in
drinking water in concentrations above the action level.
Region 5 scientist releases interim report on high lead levels in Flint
drinking water.
July 10
Region 5 Regional Administrator writes to Flint's Mayor and states the EPA
will work with the MDEQ on issues related to lead in the water.
July 21
Region 5 informs the MDEQ about the region's interpretation of the LCR,
and that Flint should have been maintaining corrosion control treatment
since the source switch. The MDEQ disagreed with the interpretation,
stating that it was premature, and requests a legal opinion. However, the
MDEQ did agree to start CCT as soon as possible.
The MDEQ will not change its sampling protocol regarding pre-flushing until
new state regulations are issued.
July 24
The MDEQ emails the EPA the results from the second 6-month monitoring
period. The 90th percentile result is 11 ppb, above the PQL of 5 ppb.
Aug. 17
The MDEQ orders Flint to optimize CCT within 6 months.
Aug. 23
Independent researcher notifies city of Flint that his research team has
started collecting samples for a water quality study in Flint.
Sept. 3
Flint Mayor announces that CCT will be implemented and invites EPA
corrosion control experts to join Flint technical advisory committee.
Sep. 8
Independent research team issues a report indicating that 40 percent of
Flint homes have elevated lead levels. "Flint has a very serious lead in
water problem."
Sep. 10
OECA Water Enforcement Division (EPA headquarters) attorney
acknowledges learning about the Flint situation and articulates plans to
follow up with Region 5 staff.
18-P-0221
35
-------
Date
Event
Sep. 11
Local doctor convenes study of children's blood lead levels following
findings about lead in drinking water from independent research team.
Sep. 15
Region 5 Regional Administrator calls the MDEQ and Flint Mayor to urge
action on drinking water.
Sep. 24
Study completed by local doctor is released showing the numbers of
children with elevated blood lead levels increased 90 percent after the
switch to Flint River.
Sep. 25
Flint issues formal health advisory regarding lead in the drinking water.
Sep. 27
Region 5 Regional Administrator calls the MDEQ to expedite corrosion
control treatment and to provide bottled water to residents.
Sep. 28
Region 5 Regional Administrator emails a 10-Point Plan to the EPA
Administrator and asks the Office of Research and Development Director to
encourage the MDEQ to call in Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services for assistance.
Oct. 1
Michigan's Chief Medical Officer confirms the results from the local doctor's
blood lead level study.
Genesee County Health Department issues do not drink advisory.
Private and public sources donate $105,000 to fund 5,000 water filters for
Flint residents to be distributed to those with the highest risk first.
Oct. 5
EPA learned that the city of Flint claimed to use lime softening as CCT.
Oct. 6
The Technical Advisory Committee recommends a return to Detroit water.
The MDEQ and the EPA agree to additional phosphate treatment for the
already finished Detroit water.
Oct. 8
Michigan announces that Flint will go back to Detroit water system for
drinking water.
Oct. 9
Michigan Congressman requests assistance from EPA Administrator.
Oct. 16
Flint returns to using treated water from Detroit.
The EPA established the Flint Safe Drinkina Water Task Force to provide
the agency's technical expertise through regular dialogue with designated
officials from the MDEQ and the city of Flint.
Oct. 18
The MDEQ's Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Director
issues statement regarding how his office was mistaken in how it
interpreted federal rules governing CCT.
18-P-0221
36
-------
Date
Event
Oct. 23
The EPA's Flint Safe Drinking Water Task Force provides the MDEQ with
technical comments on Flint's CCT plan.
Nov. 3
The EPA's Office of Water issues a memo that clarifies the agency's
interpretation that the LCR requires large water systems such as Flint to
have optimized technologies in place.
Nov. 25
The EPA's Flint Safe Drinking Water Task Force releases its preliminary
assessment, with recommendations on sampling protocol, operating
procedures, corrosion control, and outreach during transition to the KWA.
Dec. 9
Flint begins supplemental corrosion control treatment.
Dec. 14
Mayor of Flint declares state of emergency.
2016
Jan. 5
Michigan Governor declares state of emergency for Genesee County due to
health and safety issues caused by lead in Flint's drinking water.
Jan. 12
Michigan Governor requests assistance from Federal Emergency
Management Agency and activates the Michigan National Guard to help
distribute bottled water.
Jan. 14
Michigan Governor requests major disaster and emergency declaration and
federal aid.
Jan. 15
Michigan Attorney General initiates investigation to determine whether state
laws were violated.
Jan. 16
President declares federal state of emergency for city of Flint with $5 million
in aid.
Jan. 21
The EPA issues Emergency Administrative Order to the state of Michigan,
the MDEQ and the city of Flint.
Nov. 17
Region 5 acting Regional Administrator issues First Amendment to
Emergency Administrative Order.
Source: OIG-created timeline of events. The timeline ends on the date the First Amendment to Emergency
Administrative Order was issued. For all subsequent EPA activity, see the EPA's Flint Drinking Water Documents
webpage.
18-P-0221
37
-------
Appendix B
Status of Emergency Administrative
Order and Amendment
Emergency Administrative Order, January 21, 2016
The SDWA provides the EPA with the authority to order actions when there is imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health, and when actions taken by state or local authorities
are inadequate to protect public health. The EPA determined that responses from the city of Flint
and the MDEQ were inadequate, and the EPA issued the SDWA emergency administrative order
to the state of Michigan, the MDEQ and to Flint. Paragraphs 1-49 contain the EPA's findings
and conclusions. Paragraphs 50-64 identify actions required by the order, with assigned
completion dates where applicable.19 The EPA provided the status of actions on May 30, 2018.20
Paragraph
Nil m her
Due
Date*
Required Action
Status
50
1/22/16
Within one day of the effective date
of this Order, Respondents21 shall
notify EPA in writing of their
intention to comply with the terms
of this Order. For the purposes of
this Order, "day" shall mean
calendar day.
Complete
Reporting Requirements
51
1/26/16
and
weekly
thereafter
Within five days of the effective
date of this Order, the State shall
create, and thereafter maintain, a
publicly available website.
Respondents must post on this
website all reports, sampling
results, plans, weekly status reports
on the progress of all requirements
and all other documentation
required under this Order. The
Respondents shall not publish to
this website any personally
identifiable information.
Complete
Weekly status reports are
ongoing
19 Text is not verbatim.
20 Region 5's Office of Compliance and Enforcement tracks progress on the emergency order and amendment.
21 Respondents are the state of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and the city of Flint.
18-P-0221
38
-------
52
1/31/16
The Respondents shall within 10
days of the effective date of this
Order respond in writing, in
accordance with Paragraph 51, to
all of the EPA Flint Task Force's
requests and recommendations
made on November 25, 2015 and
subsequent dates. The response
shall include all actions
Respondents have taken and intend
to take in response to those requests
and recommendations. The EPA
Flint Task Force's requests and
recommendations are publicly
available at
httD://www.eDa.aov/mi/flint-drinkina-
water-documents
Ongoing - Respondents
continue to respond in
writing to all of the Technical
Support Team's (TST) (f/k/a
EPA Flint Task Force)
recommendations, including
the TST's 1-22-2018
recommendation relating to
the implementation of the
American Water Works
Association 810-17 Standard
for replacement and flushing
of lead service lines. All of
the TST's recommendations
and the corresponding
City/State responses are on
EPA's website.
53
1/31/16
Within 10 days of the effective date
of the Order the Respondents shall
provide the following information
in accordance with Paragraph 51:
a. Water quality parameter
measurements (pH, total alkalinity,
orthophosphate, chloride, turbidity,
iron, calcium, temperature,
conductivity) in the distribution
system. The City is required by the
MDEQ permit to monitor for these
parameters at 25 sites quarterly and
at 10 of these sites weekly;
Complete
1/31/16
b. All lead in water testing results
for the City since January 2013,
including those not used for LCR
compliance; and
Complete
1/31/16
c. Identification of areas (e.g., zip
codes, neighborhoods) in the City
with elevated blood lead levels.
Complete
18-P-0221
39
-------
54
1/31/16
Within 10 days of the effective date
of the Order, the Respondents shall
provide, without publicly disclosing
any personally identifiable
information, the following directly
to the EPA in accordance with
Paragraph 66:
a. Existing inventory of homes with
lead service lines in Excel or
similar format
Ongoing - An initial existing
inventory was submitted;
however, the inventory was
severely lacking in
completeness and accuracy.
Flint recently submitted an
updated estimate of their
inventory based on Flint
Action and Sustainability
Team (FAST Start) project
findings
b. Addresses of homes that have
had water service interruptions or
street disturbances (e.g., water main
breaks, road/sidewalk construction,
etc.) within the last year; and
Complete
c. Addresses of currently
unoccupied homes.
Complete
55
Ongoing
Respondents shall cooperate with
EPA as the Agency conducts LCR
sampling and other diagnostic
activities in the City.
Ongoing
Treatment and Source Water
56
To Ensure that treated water meets
finished water quality goals and is
consistently maintained throughout
the distribution system, that
existing and potential plant
operational and mechanical start-up
issues are identified and addressed,
and that water plant operations staff
are proficient in treating the
existing and new source water,
Respondents shall comply with
Paragraphs 57, 58 and 59.
Ongoing- Flint distribution
system water quality
monitoring reports are posted
on the State of Michigan's
Flint website. Current
certified plant operator duties
are being performed by a
contractor. The operator
certification level of this
contractor meets the state
requirements for operating
the Flint water treatment
plant. Two current employees
of the Flint water plant took
theD-1 Operator
Certification Exam in early
May 2018—still awaiting
results.
18-P-0221
40
-------
57
Ongoing
Respondents shall maintain
chlorine residual in the distribution
system in accordance with SDWA
and the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations ("NPDWRs")
Ongoing- The City's
contractor worked with the
City and MDEQ to increase
residual monitoring to 25
sites from 10 sites. City
continues to sample at these
locations to verify that an
adequate chlorine residual is
present throughout the
distribution system.
MDEQ approved the City's
updated Revised Total
Coliform Rule sampling plan
on 5-14-2018 to include the
required 25 sampling sites.
58
Ongoing
The City shall continue to add
corrosion inhibitors (e.g.,
orthophosphate booster) at levels
sufficient to re-optimize corrosion
control in the distribution system.
Ongoing- The City continues
to add orthophosphate as a
corrosion inhibitor with 3.1
mg/L orthophosphate WQP
requirement. There was an
LCR violation and public
notice triggered in January
2017. Orthophosphate data
kept current on the State's
website. Ongoing corrosion
control studies will further
inform the City on corrosion
control treatment.
59
2/4/16
To address optimization of
corrosion control for the system as
operated with its current water
source, within 14 days of the
effective date of this Order the
Respondents shall submit to MDEQ
and post in accordance with
Paragraph 51:
18-P-0221
41
-------
a. Submit a plan and schedule to the
MDEQ to review and revise as
needed designated optimal
corrosion control and water quality
parameters as well as monitoring
plans for LCR compliance and all
other monitoring plans developed to
ensure that the treatment plant is
consistently and reliably meeting
plant performance criteria and all
other NPDWRs;
Ongoing - WQPs were
submitted, but EPA continues
to work with the Respondents
to ensure that all the
requirements of paragraph 59
are fully met. EPA is
currently working with the
Respondents to ensure that an
LCR Compliance Plan is in
place before the City takes
over LCR compliance
monitoring from MDEQ.
b. Submit a sampling plan for daily
monitoring of water quality
parameters in the distribution
system with results compiled in a
weekly report in an approved
format; and
Ongoing - WQP monitoring
is being conducted by the
City, but EPA continues to
work with the Respondents
on the development of a
formal monitoring plan. The
City is in the process of
developing this plan.
c. Submit an operations plan for the
corrosion control equipment
(storage day tanks, feed/injection
systems), with results compiled in a
weekly format, that includes
monitoring, calibration, verification
(pump catch, etc.) as well as daily
monitoring of finished water
corrosion control parameters.
Results shall be submitted and
posted weekly.
Ongoing - The corrosion
control equipment plan
initially submitted was
inadequate. EPA, MDEQ,
and the City continue to
discuss how to finalize this
plan. The City's contractor
continues to work on related
Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP).
18-P-0221
42
-------
60
Ongoing
Respondents shall not effectuate a
transition to a new water source for
the City's PWS (e.g., from KWA)
until such time as they have
submitted a written plan, developed
through consultation with
appropriate experts and after
providing adequate advanced notice
and an opportunity for public
comment, to MDEQ and in
accordance with Paragraph 51,
demonstrating that the City has the
technical, managerial and financial
capacity to operate its PWS in
compliance with SDWA and the
NPDWRs and that necessary
infrastructure upgrades, analysis,
and testing have been completed to
ensure a safe transition. Such plans
shall include, but not be limited to,
provisions addressing:
Revised in the First
Amendment to the
Emergency Order issued on
November 17, 2016
The City has agreed to a 30-
year long-term water source,
blend of Great Lakes Water
Authority (GLWA)/ Genesee
County Drainage
Commissioner (GCDC)
water agreement.
See section 60 in the
Amendment below for
details.
a. The impacts on corrosion control
for any new source water and an
operations plan for periodic use of
existing sources of water;
b. Completion of corrosion control
study for any new sources;
c. Implementation of a
"performance period" that allows
for the demonstration of the
adequacy of treatment of the new
water source to meet all NPDWRs
before it can be distributed to
residents; and
d. The City's technical, managerial
and financial capacity to meet
SDWA's applicable requirements,
including the NPDWRs, during and
after the transition to any new water
source.
18-P-0221
43
-------
Treatment and Distribution System Management
61.
2/5/16
Within 15 days of the effective date
of this Order, the City must
demonstrate, and the MDEQ and
State must ensure, the City has the
necessary, capable and qualified
personnel required to perform the
duties and obligations required to
ensure the PWS complies with the
SDWA and the NPDWRs.
Ongoing -Hiring additional Public
Water System staff remains a
challenge for the City of Flint because
of fiscal limitations. The City now
meets operator-in-charge, laboratory
supervisor, and technician needs
through the use of a contractor. Two
current staff from the water treatment
plant are scheduled to take the
Operator Certification exam in May
2018. EPA continues to request hiring
updates during its monthly meetings
with the Respondents to ensure that
the plant is properly staffed.
62.
2/21/16
To ensure the City's PWS is
adequately operated to meet SDWA
and all NPDWRs, within 30 days of
the effective date of this Order, the
Respondents shall submit the steps
they will take to develop and
implement a distribution system
water quality optimization plan to
MDEQ and in accordance with
Paragraph 51, to evaluate and
improve its programs that affect
distribution system water quality,
including: evaluating conditions
within the distribution system;
creating better documentation; and
enhancing communication between
the various utility functions that
impact distribution system water
quality. The MDEQ must ensure that
this plan is adequate to ensure
SDWA compliance and the State
must ensure it is executed.
Ongoing— An inadequate plan was
submitted in 2016. The City's
contractor recently updated the
distribution system optimization plan,
and this document is expected to be
finalized soon. Ongoing work on SOP
development continues.
18-P-0221
44
-------
Independent Advisory Panel ("IAP")
63.
1/28/16
Within seven days of the effective
date of this Order, the MDEQ and
State, with the City's input and
concurrence, shall engage a panel of
independent, nationally recognized
experts on drinking water treatment,
sampling, distribution system
operation, and members of the
affected community to advise and
make public recommendations to the
City on steps needed to mitigate the
imminent and substantial
endangerment to the health of
persons and general operation of the
City's PWS to ensure compliance
with SDWA and the NPDWRs.
Panel was engaged and is known as
the Flint Water Interagency
Coordination Committee (FWICC).
However, no public recommendations
have been made. NOTE: Frequency of
meetings reduced from monthly to
every other month. Only one meeting
has occurred in 2018.
64.
Ongoing
The charge to the IAP will include
the following:
a. Make recommendations to the
Respondents, and for consideration
by the EPA, to ensure the safe
operation of the City's PWS.
Ongoing
See Michigan governor's website. One
resolution was passed, but was not a
recommendation. It was to extend the
declaration of the Flint Water
Emergency. However, MDEQ
frequently refers to "FWICC
Recommendations" and then says they
are not "official." No
recommendations have been made for
consideration by EPA.
b. Make other recommendations to
the Respondents, and for
consideration by the EPA, to better
serve the community served by the
City's PWS.
See above
* Stated as within number of days since the effective date of this order—January 21. 2016.
Note: For current status and details, see the MDEQ's Taking Action on Flint webpage.
18-P-0221
45
-------
First Amendment to Emergency Administrative Order, November 17, 2016
Issued by Region 5, the First Amendment to Emergency Order clarifies what is expected from
the state of Michigan, the MDEQ and the city of Flint. The amendment is intended to provide
flexibility for respondents to develop their own plan while creating accountability to provide safe
and reliable drinking water. The amendment also was designed to restore public confidence.
Required Actions
Due Date
Status
Paragraph 60 in the January 21, 2016, Order Shall
Now Read:
a.
Confirmation of Water Sources
The City shall confirm in writing to EPA its intended
new water source and emergency back-up water
source within five days of the effective date of the
First Amendment. Nothing in this First Amendment
prevents the City from identifying a different new
water source. The City must notify EPA in writing
within five days if there are any changes in its initial,
or any subsequent, new water source designation.
11/22/2016
Extension granted
to 12/1/2016
Completed- On
11/30/2016.
Initial notification
of recommended
source change
received from
Mayor on 4/19/2017
- staying on GLWA
and using GCDC-
treated KWA water
as emergency back-
up. The City
Council entered into
a long-term water
supply contract with
GLWA on
11/21/2017.
b.
Development and Implementation for New Water
Source Treatment
i. Pipeline Plan
It is necessary to complete the KWA pipeline
connection to the Flint water treatment plant ("WTP").
Respondents shall submit to MDEQ for its review and
approval, to EPA for its review, and post to the public
website under Paragraph 51, a written plan for
completing the KWA pipeline connection to the Flint
WTP ("Pipeline Plan"), within twenty-one days of the
effective date of this First Amendment. The Pipeline
Plan shall specify dates for major milestones,
including at a minimum, the following:
A. Complete engineering drawings;
B. Submit permit applications and receive approvals;
C. Request contract bidding and award; and
D. Develop construction time table, including final
completion date.
12/8/2016
This requirement
is no longer
applicable due to
the City choosing
to continue to rely
on GLWA as its
primary water
source. However,
the City still needs
to complete the
pipeline to
connect to its
backup source,
GCDC.
18-P-0221
46
-------
Upon MDEQ's written approval of the Pipeline Plan,
Respondents shall implement the Pipeline Plan, which
must provide for pipeline completion and operation at
least three months before the planned distribution date
from any new water source.
ii. Water Treatment Plant Modification Plan
("WTPMP")
Respondents shall submit to MDEQ for its review and
approval, to EPA for its review, and post to the public
website under Paragraph 51, by February 1, 2017, a
written WTPMP that provides a preliminary
evaluation for Flint's treatment of its identified new
source water. The WTPMP shall include:
A. An assessment of the treatment processes for the
new source water;
B. Identification of necessary Flint WTP infrastructure
improvements, including the assessment of associated
operation and maintenance needs; and
C. A schedule with completion dates for major
milestones, including, at a minimum, the following:
(1) identifying, securing and utilizing funding
source(s) and (2) implementing the necessary
infrastructure upgrades and other identified
improvements. Upon MDEQ's written approval of the
WTPMP, Respondents shall implement the WTPMP.
2/1/2017
Submitted- On
3/1/2018 the City
of Flint submitted
the Water
Treatment Plant
Modification Plan
to EPA and
MDEQ. The
document is
currently under
review.
iii. New Source Treatment Plan ("NSTP")
Respondents shall submit to MDEQ for its review and
approval, to EPA for its review, and post to the public
website under Paragraph 51, as soon as available and
no later than the dates set forth below, a written plan
to treat the new source water. The NSTP shall address
the City's technical, managerial, and financial capacity
to operate its PWS in compliance with the SDWA and
NPDWRs, including requirements for optimal
corrosion control treatment and water quality
parameter monitoring. The NSTP shall be developed
in consultation with appropriate experts and the public
through adequate advanced notice and
opportunity for comment. Prior to submittal of the
NSTP, Respondents shall develop a corrosion control
study for the new source water and submit the study to
MDEQ for its review and approval, and to EPA for its
review, by February I, 2017. The NSTP shall be
submitted by March 1, 2017, and shall specify a
schedule with completion dates for major milestones,
including, at a minimum, the following:
A. Finalizing necessary standard operating procedures
("SOPs") for each aspect of the water treatment
process for the Flint WTP;
2/1/2017
In Progress- The
City completed a
"coupon study"
(not requested or
required by EPA)
on 11-20-2017 to
further inform the
pipe loop
corrosion control
study (required by
EPA). The City is
currently
conducting Phase
1 of the pipe loop
study for the
current GLWA
primary source,
despite the TST
urging the City to
bypass Phase 1
and go directly to
Phase 2. The City
will also conduct
18-P-0221
47
-------
B. Implementing infrastructure upgrades that were
identified under the WTPMP;
C. Conducting a corrosion control study for the new
source water, including the analysis and testing of the
impacts on corrosion control treatment under various
circumstances to ensure a safe transition;
and
D. Developing and implementing a "performance
period," which shall begin after the completion of the
KWA pipeline connection to the Flint WTP, addressed
in Paragraph 60(b)(i), and after the completion and
implementation of all applicable requirements in
Paragraph 60(b)(ii) and (iii). The performance period
shall last as long as necessary, but no less than three
months, to allow for the demonstration of the
adequacy of treatment of the new water source to meet
all SDWA and NPDWRs before it can be distributed
to consumers.
Upon MDEQ's written approval of the NSTP,
Respondents shall implement the NSTP. After
completion of the approved NSTP, and at least five
days before the proposed distribution of the new
source water, Respondents shall: (1) certify in
accordance with Paragraph 60(c)(iv) that all elements
of the NSTP have been implemented and (2) notify the
public in accordance with Paragraph 51.
Phase 2 of the
pipe loop study,
but has suggested
it focus only on
the premise
plumbing and not
lead service lines,
and will not
consist of the final
source water blend
of GLWA and
GCDC. EPA
continues to
discuss how to
move forward and
complete this
study with
Respondents.
Unable to be
completed until
Flint has an
approved New
Source Treatment
Plan that it is
implementing and
until Flint has
been approved to
start distribution
of new source
water. Flint is
currently working
on its New Source
Treatment Plan
and will not be
ready to distribute
new source water
until late 2019 at
the earliest.
iv. Use of the Current Water Source
Respondents must continue to use the current GLWA
source to provide drinking water to the City until the
City has demonstrated that all requirements of
Paragraph 60 are met and EPA has concurred.
Respondents shall provide documentation to EPA, and
make publicly available under Paragraph 51, within
thirty days of the effective date of the First
12/17/2016
Completed- An
extension of
several months
was requested by
Mayor Weaver on
12/16/2016. On
11/30/2017, EPA
18-P-0221
48
-------
Amendment, that Respondents have made
arrangements to have continued access to its current
GLWA source water until its transition to a new
source water is complete.
received the City's
signed Master
Agreement for the
30-year GLWA
contract with the
State, GLWA,
KWA, and GCDC
as other parties to
the agreement.
c.
Reporting and Notification Requirements
i. Respondents shall provide monthly updates
regarding schedules and milestones, including amount
of funds committed, by whom, and when funds will be
available for disbursement under Paragraph 60, on the
1st day of each month on the public website under
Paragraph 51. Respondents shall continue to report
monthly until all necessary requirements of Paragraph
60 are met.
By the first of
each month
Ongoing- All
reports due thus
far have been
completed and
respondents
continue to
compile and
submit reports for
future monthly
updates.
ii. If any event occurs, or has occurred, that may delay
Respondents' ability to meet any schedule or milestone
in Paragraph 60, Respondents shall notify EPA of that
event within five days. If Respondents anticipate any
reason they may be delayed in meeting any schedule
or milestone in Paragraph 60, Respondents shall notify
EPA within five days of the date they become aware
of that reason for delay.
Within 5 days
of Respondent
becoming
aware of delay
Ongoing
Within 10 days of providing such notice to EPA
regarding a delay in meeting schedules or milestones,
Respondents shall provide contingency plans to
address each delay to MDEQ for its review and
approval and to EPA for its review.
Within 10 days
of notifying
EPA of delay
iii. If at any point the City decides to change its water
source specified under Paragraph 60(a), the City shall
notify EPA in writing within five days of such
decision. All provisions of Paragraph 60 will apply to
any change in water source.
Within 5 days
of a decision to
change Flint's
water source
Ongoing -
Currently the City
has agreed to a 30-
year, long-term
GLWA/GCDC
agreement.
iv. Respondents shall provide to EPA a written
certification, as specified under Paragraph 67 of the
Order, each time a plan, schedule, or milestone
required under Paragraph 60 is fully implemented,
until EPA has concurred that all requirements under
Paragraph 60 have been fully implemented.
Each time a
plan, schedule,
or milestone
under this
paragraph is
implemented
Ongoing
18-P-0221
49
-------
Appendix C
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
May 30, 2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the April 13, 2018, Office of Inspector General's Draft Report,
"Management Weaknesses Delayed Response to Flint Water Crisis"
FROM: Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator
Region 5
TO: Kevin L. Christensen, Assistant Inspector General
Office of Audit and Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations presented in the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report (Project No. OPE-FY16-0031) regarding the
response to the Flint water crisis. We also appreciate the additional time you provided us, so the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), the Office of Water (OW) and
Region 5 could review OIG's April 13, 2018, Draft Report and provide this joint response.
OECA, OW and Region 5 agree with all of OIG's recommendations and have already begun
undertaking steps consistent with these recommendations. Below we provide our planned
corrective actions and projected completion dates. Further, we have included as an attachment an
update regarding the status of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) emergency order EPA
issued in the Flint, Michigan, case (Attachment 1).
A critical part of EPA's core mission is to protect public health and ensure the safety of our
nation's drinking water. We appreciate OIG's efforts to bring attention to these important issues.
The Agency is working actively to improve SDWA compliance and help safeguard human
health.
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
OECA, OW and Region 5 appreciated the opportunity to ask clarifying questions regarding the
recommendations during our May 7, 2018 teleconference. The Report makes nine
recommendations. As explained during the teleconference, OECA, OW and Region 5 concur
with these recommendations and will work expeditiously to implement them.
18-P-0221
50
-------
Recommendation No. 1
OIG recommends OECA and OW establish controls to annually verify that states are monitoring
compliance with all LCR requirements, including accurately identifying tier 1 sampling sites and
maintaining continuous corrosion control.
OECA and OW concur with this recommendation. OW has recently developed a standardized
Annual Program Review template for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program.
This management review is conducted by the Regions for each State and covers required
elements, including rule implementation. Within this section, specific LCR implementation
metrics can be, and often are, discussed. This Annual Program Review template is being
implemented in FY 2018, and OW will continue to adjust for future reviews to potentially
include requiring an LCR implementation discussion in all future reports. In addition, EPA also
conducts file reviews, which are data audits of the State's program files, approximately every
three to five years. During a file review, EPA evaluates state implementation of LCR
requirements, including tier 1 sampling sites and corrosion control. For compliance monitoring
and enforcement programs, OECA will continue to explore options for creating a national
oversight approach for the drinking water programs and present recommendations to its senior
managers by June 2019.
Supplemental EPA Response and OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The EPA provided supplemental information in a June 5, 2018, meeting with the OIG. In that
meeting, and in subsequent correspondence on June 13, 2018, OECA and the OW revised the
response herein to state that they agree on the value of national oversight for compliance
monitoring and enforcement of the Drinking Water Program, but added that it is vital that they
evaluate and develop it in a collaborative manner with their state partners. The offices plan to
work with the states to develop an approach or a pilot for implementing a national compliance
monitoring and enforcement oversight program for the Drinking Water Program, as
appropriate, by June 2019. The OIG did not accept this response as meeting the intent of the
recommendation, which asked that OECA and the OW establish annual controls. We do not
agree that developing a pilot or approach constitutes establishing annual controls, per the
recommendation language. Recommendation 1 is unresolved.
Recommendation No. 2
OIG recommends OW include in the revised LCR the most protective protocol for monitoring
and corrosion control.
OW concurs with this recommendation regarding the importance of proper implementation of
the protocol for monitoring and corrosion control, and we continue to work on the long-term
revisions to the existing LCR. Most recently, OW engaged stakeholders as part of a federalism
consultation. The Agency is evaluating input we received from our state, local and tribal partners
18-P-0221
51
-------
as well as the best available peer-reviewed science to ensure the Rule reflects the best ways to
improve public health protection.
Supplemental EPA Response and OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
During a June 5, 2018, meeting, the OIG agreed to revise this recommendation. The revised
recommendation reads as follows:
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
2. Revise the Lead and Copper Ride to improve the effectiveness of monitoring and corrosion
control treatment protocols.
This revision takes into account information the EPA must consider in developing the revised Lead
and Copper Rule. Based on the revision, the OIG accepted this response from the EPA as meeting the
intent of Recommendation 2. The recommendation is resolved pending completion of corrective
actions.
Recommendation No. 3
OIG recommends Region 5 publicly document clear expectations, roles and responsibilities
between the EPA and the state of Michigan in an official document, such as a memorandum of
understanding or a supplemental primacy document.
Region 5 concurs with this recommendation. To implement this recommendation, the Region
will document clear expectations, roles and responsibilities between the EPA and Michigan in
the annual workplan for the PWSS program grant. To implement this recommendation, Region 5
will post the annual Michigan PWSS program workplan and end of year evaluation on EPA's
website so that the information is publicly available.
The PWSS grant workplan covers work conducted as part of SDWA primacy/regulatory
requirements, voluntary program efforts and EPA/State work sharing. It also includes
commitments as well as additional expectations in the form of specific targets and measures,
including both national and Regional measures. These extensive performance measures provide
additional expectations of the State and assist the Region in evaluating the State's performance.
The new PWSS program workplan for FY 2019 provides an overall summary that identifies
state-specific priorities and core program descriptions that serves as a brief overview for senior
management. The workplan also provides separate files with the program-specific summaries
that have more detail for staff and mid-level management, such as rules/primacy, data
management and reporting, enforcement and compliance assistance, laboratory certification and
sanitary surveys.
18-P-0221
52
-------
Supplemental EPA Response and OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The EPA provided supplemental information during a June 5, 2018, meeting with the OIG. In that
meeting, EPA Region 5 said it will develop a clarified statement of roles and responsibilities. The
region will document clear roles and responsibilities in the annual PWSS work plans. Based on the
revisions, the OIG accepted this response as meeting the intent of Recommendation 3. The
recommendation is resolved pending completion of corrective actions.
Recommendation No. 4
OIG recommends Region 5 implement a system for regional drinking water staff, managers and
senior leaders, which incentivizes staff elevating and management addressing important and
emerging issues in accordance with EPA's Policy on Elevation of Critical Environmental and
Public Health Issues.
Region 5 concurs with this recommendation and has worked to foster an environment where
management encourages issue elevation and staff have opportunities to elevate issues of concern
to management, especially when there appears to be a substantial threat to public health. On
August 15, 2017, Administrator Pruitt reaffirmed to all staff the importance of elevating critical
environmental and public health issues so that EPA can properly assess them and respond at
appropriate policy and governmental levels in a timely and effective manner.
Within Region 5, staff are encouraged to participate and share concerns in a variety of meetings
including team, section, branch, division, and regional meetings. These regular check-in
meetings among managers and staff allow for information to flow from regional leaders down to
staff and vice versa. Region 5 agrees to explore ways to incentivize staff to elevate issues of
concern during these engagement opportunities including providing feedback during mid-year
and end-of-year reviews with staff, specifically on the customer service critical element present
in all staff PARS agreements.
In addition to discussion during performance reviews, supervisors have the following award
mechanisms available to recognize staff efforts: Agency's annual awards process recognizing
key accomplishments, time-off awards, and monetary awards. Region 5 will further explore
ways to incentivize staff and management to elevate and address important and emerging issues,
such as a peer-to-peer recognition system.
Supplemental EPA Response and OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The EPA provided supplemental information during a June 5, 2018, meeting with the OIG. In that
meeting, Region 5 said it will incentivize staff, managers and senior leaders to elevate issues of
concern. Region 5 also clarified that it will provide feedback during midyear and end-of-year reviews
with staff, managers and senior leaders, and that it will identify ways to further incentivize staff,
managers and senior leaders to elevate and address issues. Based on the revisions, the OIG accepted
18-P-0221
53
-------
this response as meeting the intent of Recommendation 4. The recommendation is resolved pending
completion of corrective actions.
Recommendation No. 5
OIG recommends Region 5 provide the public with all results from EPA reviews of Michigan's
Safe Drinking Water Act program, and track the progress of identified corrective actions.
Region 5 concurs with this recommendation and has already made information publicly
available. The 2010 and 2016 Michigan Drinking Water Program Review Reports are currently
available on EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/mi). In addition, Region 5's FY 2010-2016
End-of-Year Evaluation Reports for the State of Michigan's PWSS Program are available to the
public through FOIA on-line
(https://foiaonline.resulations.gov/foia/action/public/view/request7obiectKM390004d281731elc)
Region 5 ensures that issues found in previous data and enforcement program reviews of the
State's PWSS implementation are included in the following year's annual PWSS program
workplan and tracked for progress. Region 5 and MDEQ are finalizing a Corrective Action Plan
that has been developed from the recommendations in the 2016 Program Review Report, which
Region 5 released in October 2017 (https://www.epa.gov/mi/2016-michigan-drinking-water-
program-review). Once final and approved by Region 5, Region 5 will post the Corrective
Action Plan to the Agency's website and provide progress updates on a quarterly basis. In
addition, the Michigan Corrective Action Plan will be attached to the FY 2018 and subsequent
PWSS grant workplans so that both State and EPA commitments are clear. Frequent check-ins
with the State are planned to ensure progress in implementing EPA's recommendations to
strengthen Michigan's drinking water program.
Beginning with the FY 2019 PWSS grant, the Region 5 Water Division Director will document
that EPA recognizes those primacy activities that Region 5 States are not fully implementing and
will require the States to provide both short-term and long-term plans for implementing these
activities.
OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The OIG accepted this response from the EPA as meeting the intent of Recommendation 5. The
recommendation is resolved pending completion of corrective actions.
18-P-0221
54
-------
Recommendation No. 6
OIG recommends OECA provide regular training for EPA drinking water staff, managers and
senior leaders on SDWA tools and authorities; state and agency roles and responsibilities; and
any SDWA amendments or LCR revisions.
As noted during our May 7, 2018 teleconference with OIG, OECA and OW share responsibility
for such trainings and plan to work together to implement this recommendation. Accordingly,
they asked that this recommendation be addressed to both OECA and OW. OECA and OW have
provided national SDWA training covering a range of topics, including statutory authorities,
such as SDWA Section 1431 and Section 1414, and LCR requirements. OECA and OW commit
to expanding their training for states, regions and Headquarters on these SDWA issues.
As part of ongoing Agency efforts to enhance national implementation of the LCR, EPA has
been providing training on the Rule's optimal corrosion control treatment and optimal water
quality parameter requirements. The workshops provide a review of LCR requirements and
emphasize the tools and authorities drinking water programs can leverage to implement the
requirements more effectively. The training has been delivered through in-person workshops at
each of the EPA Regions, as well as through special conference sessions. Since the inaugural
workshop in FY 2016, the training has reached approximately 1,300 drinking water professionals
(staff and managerial level) from federal and state drinking water programs, technical assistance
providers and water utilities.
Supplemental EPA Response and OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The EPA provided supplemental information during a June 5, 2018, meeting with the OIG. In that
meeting, OECA and the OW clarified that the training described will also be provided to senior
leaders. Based on the revisions, and subsequent correspondence on June 12, 2018, the OIG accepted
this response as meeting the intent of Recommendation 6. The recommendation is resolved pending
completion of corrective actions.
Recommendation No. 7
OIG recommends OW implement a system to identify management risks in state drinking water
programs, including elements such as atypical events, emerging public health concerns,
environmental justice concerns and public health analysis.
OW concurs with this recommendation. EPA has initiated a workgroup with participation from
OECA, OW and the Regions. The workgroup will explore how best to use drinking water data
and measures to identify public water systems that present or are likely to present a significant
risk to public health. The workgroup will develop procedures and strategies to ensure timely and
effective intervention where risks to public health are identified. Initial findings and the
workgroup's proposed framework for action are expected by the end of December 2018.
18-P-0221
55
-------
OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The OIG accepted this response from the EPA as meeting the intent of Recommendation 7. The
recommendation is resolved pending completion of corrective actions.
Recommendation No. 8
OIG recommends OW create a system that tracks citizen complaints and gathers information on
emerging issues. The system should assess the risk associated with the complaints, including
efficient and effective resolution.
As explained during our May 7, 2018 teleconference with OIG, OECA and OW also plan to
work together to implement recommendation no. 8 and, thus, we ask the OIG to address this
recommendation to both offices. OECA and OW are exploring ways to adapt or leverage
existing tools. For example, OECA currently supports a public, online Report a Violation (RAV)
tool (https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations) that collects general information
about violations. That tool is currently not specific to drinking water data, but it has been used to
receive descriptions of potential SDWA violations. EPA may explore possible revisions that
would capture more precise contaminant information if reporting capabilities within SDWA,
SDWIS Prime, or STORET data systems cannot be modified to receive citizen drinking water
contamination data. EPA could use the RAV as the foundation of an improved system that
captures citizen reports and sorts them into ranked categories to facilitate identification of
management risks that require EPA response.
OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The OIG accepted this response from the EPA as meeting the intent of Recommendation 8. The
recommendation is resolved pending completion of corrective actions.
Recommendation No. 9
OIG recommends OECA and OW improve oversight by establishing a clear and credible
escalation policy for EPA intervention in states. The policy should provide steps the EPA will
take when states do not act.
OECA and OW concur with this recommendation. On August 15, 2017, Administrator Pruitt
reaffirmed EPA's Policy on Elevation of Critical Environmental and Public Health Issues. The
Administrator directed EPA staff to elevate concerns quickly and directed the Regions to inform
headquarters of any issues that are elevated under this policy.
OECA is providing training on the use of SDWA Section 1431 authority. In implementing the
recommendation from the OIG's SDWA Section 1431 Management Alert in October 2016 for
18-P-0221
56
-------
OECA to update the 1991 SDWA Section 1431 guidance, over the past year, OECA worked
with several Regions, OW and OGC to develop updates to the guidance. OECA is also
conducting trainings on Section 1431 and the updated guidance.
OECA is currently considering the possibility of a national initiative to promote improved
drinking water compliance. EPA has initiated a workgroup with participation from OECA, OW
and the Regions. The workgroup will explore how best to use drinking water data and measures
to identify public water systems that present or are likely to present a significant risk to public
health. The workgroup will develop procedures and strategies to ensure timely and effective EPA
intervention where a state's response to the risk is insufficient to protect the public's health.
OECA will seek state input on whether to create a new national initiative to improve drinking
water compliance starting in June 2018, and then will seek public comment in November 2018.
OECA expects to make a decision after this engagement process by July 2019.
OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The OIG accepted this response from the EPA as meeting the intent of Recommendation 9. The
recommendation is resolved pending completion of corrective actions.
CLARIFYING INFORMATION REGARDING REPORT FINDINGS
EPA appreciates the opportunity to provide some clarifications to inform the Report's findings.
EPA has included clarifications below, and Attachment 2 includes a more detailed itemization of
clarifications and desired corrections.
First, EPA has identified instances where the Report's simplifications or generalizations result in
statements that are factually incorrect or otherwise inconsistent with the Lead and Copper Rule's
(LCR or Rule) requirements. EPA recognizes and appreciates that OIG's Draft Report aims to
simplify and summarize the LCR's requirements and acknowledges that the Report's findings
about the LCR provide important information on EPA's implementation of the Rule.
Second, we want to highlight EPA's concerns about the Draft Report's detailed timeline of
events; we think additional information needs to be included for it to be complete and accurate.
This timeline, which involves several different government agencies and several EPA offices, is
important in understanding the findings and recommendations in the Draft Report. We believe
that the additional information provided will allow for a more accurate timeline.
The major clarifications that EPA would like to provide on OIG's Draft Report are as follows:
1. The Report's use of generalized terminology such as "maintaining corrosion control,"
without including the term "treatment," adds ambiguity to the audit's findings by
implying Flint was or could have complied with the LCR without installing treatment,
which is factually inaccurate. There are two intentionally distinct terms used in the LCR
regarding corrosion control; these are "corrosion control" and "corrosion control
18-P-0221
57
-------
treatment." The LCR provides that systems can be deemed to have optimized corrosion
control with or without treatment so there is an intentional distinction between
"optimized corrosion control" and "optimized corrosion control treatment," which is
especially important with respect to Flint. The term "corrosion control treatment" should
be used throughout the Report when referring specifically to the Flint water system.
OIG Response:
The OIG reviewed our use of these terms, and we made changes to the report as appropriate.
2. The Draft Report includes several references suggesting a 5 parts per billion (ppb)
benchmark is used to determine when corrosion control treatment installation is required
EPA would like to clarify that all large systems must install corrosion control treatment,
regardless of their tap sampling results, unless they meet certain criteria identified in 40
C.F.R. Section 141.81(b).
EPA would also like to clarify that the LCR's treatment technique requirements (e.g.,
corrosion control treatment installation, lead service line replacement, public education)
are triggered when 90th percentile concentrations exceed the lead action level of 15 ppb.
Average concentrations are not used, as currently suggested in the Report.
OIG Response:
The OIG reviewed our description of the LCR's use of the PQL, and we made changes to the report to
clarify the EPA point listed above.
3. To provide a clear description and timeline of events, additional information is required.
Two areas requiring additional clarity are:
A. Instances in which the Draft Report concludes that EPA had access to timely
information, when, in fact, EPA believes the state did not provide complete,
accurate, and timely data to EPA:
o Page 12,1st paragraph under "Corrosion Control Was Not Maintained":
" The MDEO did not require Flint's public water system staff to
maintain corrosion control when Flint changed water sources in April
2014. According to EPA Region 5, the MDEO concluded that this
change in source water would classify Flint as a new drinking water
system. "
18-P-0221
58
-------
The above sentence conveys that EPA knew of MDEQ's decision to classify
Flint as a new water system in 2014; EPA was not aware of this decision until
2015.
o Page 19, 2nd paragraph under "Region 5 Did Not Have an Effective
System for Risk Assessment":
"By compiling and examining these factors, Region 5's staff and
managers could have intervened earlier to oversee the drinking water
source switch and subsequent events. Instead, the federal response
was delayed while residents continued to be exposed to lead in their
drinking water. "
The above paragraph does not accurately characterize the timeline of events.
The Total Coliform Rule and Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
maximum contaminant level violations occurred after the source switch. It is
unclear how violations that occurred after the source switch could have led
Region 5 to oversee something that had already happened (the source switch).
o Page 24,1st paragraph:
"Although this is true, regional staff knew of the source switch soon
after it happened."
This sentence overlooks the fact that the LCR was specifically amended to
require advanced notification of long-term source and treatment changes to
the State, and to require the State to review and approve of these changes, not
EPA. Region 5 did not learn of the lack of corrosion control treatment
maintenance until a year later, on April 24, 2015, when the State
communicated that Flint did not have corrosion control treatment.
OIG Response:
The OIG included additional text on page 28 noting that Region 5 did not know about the MDEQ
misclassification until 2015. The OIG did not make substantial changes to the discussion of risk
assessment. The objective for this discussion is to note that information from various sources came to
Region 5 over a period of time—both before Flint changed drinking water sources and after the
change occurred. As information about risks mounted over time, Region 5 may not have known that
lead contamination existed, but it could have identified Flint as a system with a high level of risk. This
could have enabled the region to focus additional attention, questions, assistance, inspections and,
where appropriate, enforcement resources on Flint and the MDEQ to forestall a potential drinking
water incident like the one that occurred in Flint.
18-P-0221
59
-------
B. Key activities that Region 5 completed between May 2014 and January 2016 to
respond to citizen complaints are not clearly described in the Report. These
actions are crucial to understanding how EPA responded to the scope of the
recognized risks to public health.
o Page 30, February 25, 2015 - Requested insert for timeline: "EPA assigns
Dr. Michael Wright, an EPA disinfection by-products expert, to participate on
Flint's Technical Advisory Committee."
o Page 31, April 25, 2015 - Requested insert for timeline: "Region 5 staff
notifies MDEQ staff that CCT should have been maintained with the source
switch. Moreover, even with MDEQ's incorrect interpretation of the LCR, the
July-Dec 2014 LCR compliance results of 6 ppb would have triggered the
need for CCT since the 90th percentile was above the threshold in 40 C.F.R.
Section 141.81(b)(3)."
o Page 31, April 27, 2015 - Requested addition to timeline: "Region 5
scientists meet with [residentjand provide sampling bottles for her to take
water samples for lead in her home."
o Page 31, April 29, 2015 - Requested addition to timeline: "Region 5 meets
with and informs the MDEQ of the Region's interpretation of the LCR and
that Flint should have been doing corrosion control treatment since the source
switch."
OIG Response:
The OIG included additional timeline events where the EPA was able to provide documentation.
4. The Draft Report highlights events that, from OIG's perspective, indicated an impending
lead crisis in Flint. However, for the following reasons, at the time the events occurred,
while they indicated problems, they were not clear indications of a lead crisis:
• Bacteriological contamination in public water systems is common in the summer
months.
• Disinfection by-product levels are typically highest in the summer months and
exceedances may occur due to higher water temperatures and increased chlorine
levels used in the summer months.
• The residence with the high lead levels in early 2015 was an atypical situation (i.e.,
not indicative of other homes in the City). The home had an unusually long service
line and the service line was physically disturbed in two places. Consequently,
although this situation posed an obvious risk to the residents at that home, the high
lead levels at that home did not indicate a system-wide concern, especially given that
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) had indicated that the
18-P-0221
60
-------
system had corrosion control treatment in place at that time. It was not until April
2015 that EPA learned from MDEQ that Flint did not have corrosion control
treatment in place.
• The LCR's 90th percentile compliance standard allows for 10% of homes to exceed
the action level of 15 ppb. The City's 90th percentile values were at 6 ppb (December
2014) and 11 ppb (June 2015). It was not until September 2015 that EPA learned the
City was not sampling at the required tier 1 (highest risk) sites for LCR compliance
monitoring.
OIG Response:
The OIG's discussion on risk assessment is intended to describe how information that Region 5
accrued over time demonstrated a system at risk. In addition to the information in the bullets, the
region also received citizen complaints, knew that the MDEQ had disinvested from some SDWA
requirements, and that the city recently changed drinking water sources. As described above, Region 5
may not have known there was a specific risk of lead contamination, but it could have identified Flint
as a system with a high level of risk. The region then could have focused additional attention,
questions, assistance, inspections and, where appropriate, enforcement resources on Flint and the
MDEQ to forestall a potential drinking water incident like the one that occurred in Flint.
5. The Draft Report refers to the LCR's Section 141.81(b)(3) criteria to allow Flint's system
to meet the exemption criteria for corrosion control treatment. However, Flint never met
the criteria in (b)(3). Flint's public water system was required to have corrosion control
treatment; it met that requirement by the 1997 deadline through purchasing water from
Detroit treated with orthophosphate. As EPA noted in its 2016 Michigan Drinking Water
Program Review Report (https://www.epa.gov/mi/2016-michigan-drinking-water-
program-review). MDEQ did not correctly review and approve Flint's source/treatment
change in 2014.
OIG Response:
The OIG made modifications to the description of Flint's sampling under the LCR's Section
141.81(b)(3).
6. There is an important clarification needed to the timeline section on page 30 of the Draft
Report. In February 2015, there were three statements in the email provided to Region 5
by an MDEQ manager that led EPA to believe corrosion control treatment had been
maintained. MDEQ stated: (1) Flint has an optimal corrosion control program in place;
(2) Flint is conducting water quality parameter monitoring; and (3) the system is in
compliance with all treatment technique requirements. These statements, taken together,
indicated that MDEQ believed that Flint was in compliance with the LCR requirement to
18-P-0221
61
-------
maintain corrosion control treatment and that the corrosion control treatment was being
monitored using the required water quality parameter monitoring.
OIG Response:
The OIG's description on page 20 provides a summary of this point.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Gwendolyn Spriggs (OECA) at
(202) 564-2439, Steven Moore (OW) at (202) 564-0992, and Eric Levy (Region 5) at (312) 353-
3611.
Attachments
18-P-0221
62
-------
OIG Report: Management Weaknesses Delayed Response to Flint Water Crisis
Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
Supplemental EPA Response and OIG Disposition of Corrective Actions:
The EPA provided supplemental information on proposed corrective actions during a June 5, 2018,
meeting with the OIG. Based on the revisions, the OIG accepted EPA responses as meeting the intent
for eight of the nine recommendations. Eight recommendations are resolved pending completion of
corrective actions. Recommendation 1 is unresolved.
Recommendation
Lead
Office
CA
Target Date
Corrective Action
1. Establish controls
to annually verify that
the states are
monitoring
compliance with all
Lead and Copper Rule
requirements,
including accurately
identifying tier 1
sampling sites and
maintaining
continuous corrosion
control.
OECA
OW
1
PWSS Reviews:
Beginning in 4th
Quarter FY 2019
(September 30,
2019)and then
ongoing.
OECA national
drinking water
oversight
approach
recommendations:
June 30, 2019.
EPA will continue to focus additional
attention on metrics related to LCR
implementation that can be incorporated
into the protocol that Regions will use
when conducting their annual Public
Water System Supervision program
reviews. The Annual Program Review
template is being implemented in the FY
2018 and will continue to be adjusted for
future reviews to meet oversight goals.
For compliance monitoring and
enforcement programs, OECA will
continue to explore options for creating a
national oversight approach for the
drinking water programs and present
recommendations to its senior managers
by June 2019.
Revised Corrective Action:
OECA agrees on the value of national
oversight for compliance monitoring and
enforcement of the Drinking Water
program, but it is vital that we evaluate
and develop it in a collaborative manner
with our State partners. Accordingly, we
plan to work with the States to develop
an approach or a pilot for implementing
a national compliance monitoring and
enforcement oversight program for the
18-P-0221
63
-------
Recommendation
Lead
Office
CA
Target Date
Corrective Action
drinking water, as appropriate, by June
2019
2. Include in the
revised Lead and
Copper Rule the most
protective protocols
for monitoring and
corrosion control.
Revised
recommendation:
OW
2
The estimated
publication
schedule for
proposed
revisions to the
LCR is February
28, 2019.
The Agency is evaluating input we
recently received from our state, local
and tribal partners as well as the best
available peer-reviewed science to
ensure the Rule reflects the best ways to
improve public health protection.
Revise the Lead and
Copper Rule to
improve the
effectiveness of
monitoring and
corrosion control
protocols.
3. Publicly document
clear expectations,
roles and
responsibilities
between the EPA and
the state of Michigan
in an official
document, such as a
memorandum of
understanding or a
supplemental primacy
document.
Region
5
3
FY 2019 Annual
Workplan which
will be posted by
October 1, 2018.
Region 5 documents clear expectations,
roles and responsibilities between the
EPA and each of our states in the annual
workplan for the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program grant. To
implement this recommendation, Region
5 will post the annual Michigan PWSS
program workplan and end of year
evaluation on EPA's website so that the
information is publicly available.
Revised Corrective Action:
Region 5 will document clear
expectations, roles and responsibilities
between the EPA and each of our states
in the annual workplan for the Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program grant. To implement this
recommendation, Region 5 will post the
annual Michigan PWSS program
workplan and end of year evaluation on
EPA's website so that the information is
publicly available.
18-P-0221
64
-------
Recommendation
Lead
Office
CA
Target Date
Corrective Action
4. Implement a system
for regional drinking
water staff, managers
and senior leaders,
which incentivizes
staff elevating and
management
addressing important
and emerging issues in
accordance with the
EPA's Policy on
Elevation of Critical
Environmental and
Public Health Issues.
Region
5
4
PARS end-of-
year for FY 2018,
which must be
completed by
October 31, 2018.
Within Region 5, staff are encouraged to
participate and share concerns in a
variety of meetings including team,
section, branch, division, and regional
meetings. These regular check-in
meetings among managers and staff
allow for information to flow from
regional leaders down to staff and vice
versa. Region 5 agrees to explore ways
to incentivize staff to elevate issues of
concern during these engagement
opportunities, including providing
feedback during mid-year and end-of-
year reviews with staff, specifically on
the customer service critical element
present in all staff PARS agreements.
Region 5 will further explore ways to
incentive staff and management
elevating and addressing important and
emerging issues including the use of
current awards, both recognition and
monetary.
Revised Corrective Action:
Within Region 5, staff are encouraged to
participate and share concerns in a
variety of meetings including team,
section, branch, division, and regional
meetings. These regular check-in
meetings among managers and staff
allow for information to flow from
regional leaders down to staff and vice
versa. Region 5 agrees to incentivize
staff, managers, and senior leaders to
elevate and address issues of concern
during these engagement opportunities,
including providing feedback during
mid-year and end-of-year reviews,
specifically on the customer service
critical element present in all staff,
managers, and senior leaders PARS
agreements. Region 5 will incentive
staff, management and senior leadership
18-P-0221
65
-------
Recommendation
Lead
Office
CA
Target Date
Corrective Action
to elevate and address important and
emerging issues including the use of
current awards, both recognition and
monetary.
5. Provide the public
with all results from
EPA reviews of
Michigan's Safe
Drinking Water Act
program, and track the
progress of identified
corrective actions.
Region
5
5
Will post the
corrective action
table by
September 30,
2018, and provide
updates on
progress by April
30 and September
30 [f]or each year
thereafter.
The 2010 and 2016 Michigan Drinking
Water Program Review Reports are
currently available on-line. The FY
2010-2016 End-of-Year Evaluation
Reports by Region 5 are available to the
public through FOIA online.
Region 5 and MDEQ are finalizing a
Corrective Action Plan that has been
developed from the recommendations in
the 2016 Program Review Report, which
Region 5 released in October of 2017.
Once final and approved by Region 5,
Region 5 will post the corrective action
to the Agency's website and provide
updates on a quarterly basis. In addition,
the Michigan Corrective Action Plan will
be attached to the FY 2018 and
subsequent PWSS grant workplans so
that both State and EPA commitments
are clear. Frequent check-ins with the
State are planned to ensure progress in
implementing EPA's recommendations
to strengthen Michigan's drinking water
program.
6. Provide regular
training for EPA
drinking water staff,
managers and leaders
on Safe Drinking
Water Act tools and
authorities; state and
agency roles and
responsibilities; and
any Safe Drinking
Water Act
amendments or Lead
and Copper Rule
revisions.
OECA
OW
6
State/Regional
staff LCR
trainings
conducted in all
EPA Regions by
May 31, 2018;
SDWA Section
1431 training
provided on May
23, 2018;
Training efforts
will be ongoing.
EPA has provided and will continue to
provide regular training nationally about
SDWA tools and authorities, like
Sections 1414 and 1431, and various
NPDWRs, including LCR.
As part of ongoing Agency efforts to
enhance national implementation of the
LCR, EPA has been providing training
on the Rule's optimal corrosion control
treatment and optimal water quality
parameter requirements. The workshops
provide a review of LCR requirements
and emphasize the tools and authorities
drinking water programs can leverage to
18-P-0221
66
-------
Recommendation
Lead
Office
CA
Target Date
Corrective Action
EPA will
reevaluate
training needs by
September 30,
2019.
implement the requirements more
effectively. The training has been
delivered through in-person workshops
at each of the EPA Regions, as well as
through special conference sessions.
Revised Corrective Action:
EPA has provided and will continue to
provide regular training nationally to
staff and managers about SDWA tools
and authorities, like Sections 1414 and
1431, and various NPDWRs, including
LCR. EPA will also make these trainings
available to senior leaders.
As part of ongoing Agency efforts to
enhance national implementation of the
LCR, EPA has been providing training
on the Rule's optimal corrosion control
treatment and optimal water quality
parameter requirements. The workshops
provide a review of LCR requirements
and emphasize the tools and authorities
drinking water programs can leverage to
implement the requirements more
effectively. The training has been
delivered through in-person workshops
at each of the EPA Regions, as well as
through special conference sessions.
7. Implement a system
to identify
management risks in
state drinking water
programs, including
elements such as
atypical events,
emerging public
health concerns,
environmental justice
concerns and public
health analysis.
OW
7
Initial findings
and the
workgroup's
proposed
framework for
action are
expected by
December 31,
2018.
EPA has initiated a workgroup with
participation from OECA, OW and the
Regions. The workgroup will explore
how best to use drinking water data and
measures to identify public water
systems that present or are likely to
present a significant risk to public health.
The workgroup will develop procedures
and strategies to ensure timely and
effective intervention where risks to
public health are identified.
18-P-0221
67
-------
Recommendation
Lead
Office
CA
Target Date
Corrective Action
8. Create a system that
tracks citizen
complaints and
gathers information on
emerging issues. The
system should assess
the risk associated
with the complaints,
including efficient and
effective resolution.
OW
OECA
8
4th Quarter FY
2019; September
30, 2019.
Identify potential enhancements to
existing systems and/or identify new
system requirements that can support
tracking of citizen complaints.
9. Improve oversight
by establishing a clear
and credible
escalation policy for
EPA intervention in
states. The policy
should provide steps
the EPA will take
when states do not act.
OECA
OW
9
Training efforts
will be ongoing.
EPA will
reevaluate
training needs by
September 30,
2019.
Seek state input:
June 30, 2018;
Seek public
comment:
November 30,
2018;
Decision on
policy:
July 31, 2019.
OECA will continue to provide training
on SDWA authorities, including the use
of SDWA Section 1431 when state and
local authorities have not acted to protect
public health.
EPA has initiated a workgroup with
participation from OECA, OW and the
Regions. The workgroup will develop
procedures and strategies to ensure
timely and effective EPA intervention
where a state's response to the risk is
insufficient to protect the public's health.
18-P-0221
68
-------
Appendix D
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Special Advisor, Office of the Administrator
Chief of Staff
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for Water
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Administrator
Director, Office of Children's Health Protection, Office of the Administrator
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water
Director, Office of Water, Region 5
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 5
Public Affairs Coordinator, Region 5
18-P-0221
69
------- |