.^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.

-------