,ML
% / OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
^ %
LU
O
• PRO"^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Compendium of
Unimplemented Recommendations
as of March 31, 2009
Report No. 09-N-0148
April 30, 2009
-------
Abbreviations
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CIO Chief Information Officer
CPAF Cost-Plus-Award-Fee
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
IGEMS Inspector General Enterprise Management System
MATS Management Audit Tracking System
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NSQS National Sediment Quality Survey
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEI Office of Environmental Information
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW Offi ce of Water
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
SCORPIOS Superfund Cost Recovery Package Imaging and On-Line System
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
April 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
Report No. 09-N-0148
Acting Assistant Administrators
Acting Regional Administrators
Acting General Counsel
Acting Chief Financial Officer
Acting Associate Administrators
Attached is the Semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31,
2009, prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). This Compendium fulfills a requirement of the Inspector General Act
(as amended) that the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress identify reports containing significant
recommendations described in previous Semiannual Reports on which corrective action has not
been completed.
This Compendium, as a separate document addressed to EPA leadership, is part of the OIG's
follow-up strategy to promote robust internal controls. Follow-up is done in collaboration with
the EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer and EPA Audit Follow-up Coordinators. The goal
is to improve overall audit management by helping EPA managers gain a greater awareness of
outstanding agreed-to commitments for action on OIG report recommendations. Implementing
these recommendations will correct weaknesses, reduce vulnerabilities to risk, and leverage
opportunities for improved performance.
The significance of audit follow-up, as described by OMB Circular A-50, is enhanced by the
public's expectation for greater transparency and a heightened interest by Congress in realizing
potential opportunities for improvement in the Federal Government. The OIG's initial report on
unimplemented recommendations in April 2008 followed by the first edition of the Compendium
in October 2008 appear to be having the intended effect in terms of greater Agency awareness of,
and action on, unimplemented OIG recommendations.
The unimplemented recommendations listed in this Compendium were selected by criteria of
significance and being identified as unimplemented in EPA's Management Audit Tracking
System or, in some cases, through review by the OIG. Exclusion from the Compendium does
not indicate the OIG's validation that a recommendation has been completed. However, it is a
TO
Acting Deputy Administrator
-------
goal of the OIG, through other reviews, to verify the reported completeness of as many
significant recommendations as possible.
According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, audit follow-up is a shared
responsibility between the Agency and the OIG. We will continue to identify unimplemented
recommendations for attention and action, as well as remove the listing of recommendations as
unimplemented when appropriate information of completion is provided. We hope that you find
this tool useful in identifying ways to further improve Agency operations.
Bill A. Roderick
Deputy Inspector General
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Unimplemented Recommendations 4
OIG Report Number
08-P-0141 4
08-P-0116 6
08-P-0093 7
2007-P-00030 8
2007-P-00026 10
2007-P-00025 11
2007-P-00008 12
2007-P-00007 13
2006-P-00038 14
2006-P-00016 16
2006-P-00013 18
2006-P-00009 19
2006-P-00001 20
2005-P-00024 21
2005-P-00011 22
2005-P-00010 23
2004-P-00030 25
2001-P-00013 26
Appendix A: OIG Reports with Unimplemented
Recommendations by Program Office 28
Appendix B: Unimplemented Recommendations:
10/31/08 Compendium Compared to Current Compendium 30
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations is to highlight for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) management significant recommendations that
have remained unimplemented past the due date agreed upon by EPA and the Office of Inspector
General (OIG). In addition, the Compendium satisfies part of Section 5(a) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, which requires each Inspector General to issue semiannual
reports to Congress and include "an identification of each significant recommendation described
in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed." This
Compendium is being issued as a supplement to the OIG's Semiannual Report to Congress for
the reporting period of October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. The OIG intends to issue this
Compendium in each subsequent semiannual reporting period to keep Agency management
informed about EPA's outstanding commitments and progress in taking agreed upon actions on
OIG recommendations to improve programs and operations.
Background
Recommendations are issued by EPA's OIG to improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness,
or integrity of EPA programs and operations. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-50, Audit Follow up, affirms that corrective action taken by management on resolved
findings and recommendations is essential to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
government operations and that audit follow-up is a shared responsibility of agency management
officials and auditors.
OMB Circular A-50 requires each agency to establish systems to ensure the prompt and proper
resolution and implementation of audit recommendations. EPA Order 2750, based on OMB
Circular A-50, details EPA's policy and procedures on audit follow-up. The Chief Financial
Officer is the Agency Audit Follow-up Official and has responsibility for Agency-wide audit
resolution and ensuring Action Officials implement corrective actions. EPA uses the
Management Audit Tracking System (MATS) to track information on Agency implementation of
OIG recommendations. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer maintains and operates
MATS. MATS receives report data, such as the report title and issue date, from the Inspector
General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS).
The Audit Management Official in the Office of the Administrator, the Office of General
Counsel, and each Assistant Administrator's or Regional Administrator's office, designates an
Audit Follow-up Coordinator for that office. Audit Follow-up Coordinators are responsible for
quality assurance and analysis of tracking system data. When corrective actions in response to
recommendations in an audit report are completed and certified, the Agency may inactivate that
report's MATS file and it must no longer be tracked by the Audit Follow-up Coordinator. The
Agency self-certifies that corrective actions are completed. The Agency is also responsible
under the Inspector General Act for reporting on audit reports for which final corrective action
has not been taken 1 year or more after the Agency's management decision, on corrective actions
to be taken in response to findings and recommendations.
1
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
This is the second edition of the Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations. It
identifies 32 unimplemented recommendations from 18 reports compared to 40 unimplemented
recommendations from 20 reports identified in the first edition of the Compendium for the period
ending September 30, 2008. Of the 32 unimplemented recommendations currently reported, 22
from 14 reports are continuing, and 10 from 4 reports are newly identified. Also, 18
unimplemented recommendations from 6 reports indentified in the previous Compendium have
been removed from this current edition. Please note that several recommendations may be
attributable to a single report, so that a report could have a combination of unimplemented
recommendations reported as continuing, newly reported, and removed. Also, please note that
removal of an unimplemented recommendation does not necessarily imply that it was verified as
implemented, but only reported as completed or that the target completion date was revised with
OIG approval.
Scope and Methodology
Due to our limited scope and purpose, we did not conduct our work in accordance with all
generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the
United States. Specifically, we did not evaluate management controls, determine compliance
with laws and regulations, or develop findings and recommendations. Further, we did not
thoroughly assess the validity and reliability of data obtained from the Agency's MATS, which
is used by EPA to track audit follow-up information. Although MATS was our primary source
for identifying unimplemented recommendations, we did perform additional steps to search for
unimplemented recommendations that may not have been identified in MATS.
We reviewed selected audit and evaluation reports issued by the EPA OIG from October 1, 1997,
through September 30, 2008, to identify significant unimplemented recommendations for
inclusion in the Compendium. However, we did not identify any significant unimplemented
recommendations from Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003. We did not review
recommendations from reports without an OIG agreement on the Agency's corrective action plan
(Management Decision). A list of these reports can be found in Appendix 2 of the OIG
Semiannual Report to Congress.
We excluded recommendations with future milestone dates for action. Some unimplemented
recommendations that were excluded from this Compendium may, upon further review, be
included in the next Compendium. A recommendation's exclusion from the Compendium does
not indicate our determination that the recommendation has been implemented. We limited the
unimplemented recommendations to those we believe are significant because they could have a
material impact on the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, or integrity of EPA programs and
operations. For this purpose, we define the following terms:
• Economy: Opportunity to save, prevent loss, or recover at least $500,000 in monetary
costs or value.
• Efficiency: Improvement in the process, capacity, accessibility, or delivery of program
objectives and the elimination of unnecessary or unproductive actions or expenses.
• Effectiveness: Improvement in the quality of, or reduction in the risk to, public health
and the environment.
• Integrity: Improvement in operational accountability, enforcement of and compliance
with laws and regulations, and security of resources for public confidence.
2
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
The Compendium includes 18 reports and lists 32 unimplemented recommendations. The
following EPA offices have unimplemented recommendations listed in this Compendium:
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI)
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Office of Water (OW)
We anticipate that the Agency will provide updates in MATS on the status of each
unimplemented recommendation, including a description of progress and an explanation of the
delay in completing an agreed-to action.
3
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Unimplemented Recommendations
Action Office: OECA
Report Title: EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements
Report No.: 08-P-0141 Date Issued: 04/28/2008
Report Summary
According to EPA's Superfund information system, there were 3,397 active Superfund
enforcement instruments to ensure cleanups at National Priorities List (NPL) sites as of
September 30, 2007. Yet, EPA does not nationally compile or track data on substantial non-
compliance with the terms or requirements of these instruments. Therefore, we were not able to
fully determine whether the regions have resolved Superfund instrument violations consistent
with criteria and authorities. In 2000, though, EPA recognized it needed to improve in this area;
it issued an internal report recommending that the regions improve their data on the compliance
status of Superfund enforcement instruments and responses to noncompliance. However, EPA
has not implemented this recommendation. Consequently, the Agency lacks the internal controls
necessary to monitor compliance with Superfund instruments nationally. The report
recommendations were issued to OECA and Region 5. However, Region 5 has no past-due
corrective actions recorded in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA request that
the regions input compliance status data for Superfund instruments in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Limit
the CERCLIS input for the "In Violation" designations to issues that meet OECA's definition for
substantial noncompliance.
Status: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Significant Noncompliance Workgroup and the CERCLA Compliance
Tracking Workgroup reached a consensus on defining significant noncompliance and
system enhancements that will allow regions to track and update compliance information
in CERCLIS. The products of the workgroups were integrated into a draft, Guidance on
Tracking Substantial Noncompliance with CERCLA Enforcement Instruments in
CERCLIS. OECA is addressing the comments received from the regions and will ask
EPA's General Counsel to review the guidance. Revisions to the guidance in response to
comments will also result in minor changes to the compliance status values list in
CERCLIS. OECA plans to complete this corrective action by June 30, 2009. The
agreed-to completion date was December 31, 2008.
Recommendation 5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA monitor
Region 5's progress in establishing an enforceable Superfund instrument for the Muskego
Landfill Site that provides specific response actions and milestones to address the off-site
contamination issues. If Region 5 is unable to finalize this Superfund instrument, take
appropriate actions to ensure that enforceable response actions and milestones to address the
contamination issues are established.
4
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Status: OECA conferred regularly with Region 5 about the Muskego Landfill
enforcement process. Region 5 reports that discussions with the PRP for an
Administrative Order on Consent for off-site ground-water investigations have been
extremely productive. They have agreed on a scope of work for all necessary off-site
investigations. However, Region 5 and the PRP have agreed that it is best to terminate
the Administrative Order on Consent negotiations and immediately begin negotiations for
a consent decree to replace the existing unilateral administrative order. The consent
decree will have to update requirements for all aspects of the Remedial Design/Remedial
Action and put EPA in a better position to expedite implementing any additional
requirements to protect the public's use of groundwater near the site. More
documentation on this matter is included in OECA's official files. OECA plans to
complete this corrective action by September 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date
was March 31, 2009.
5
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OCFO, OECA
Report Title: EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money
Report No.: 08-P-0116 Date Issued: 03/26/2008
Report Summary
CERCLA (Superfund) authorizes the Federal Government, States, and private parties to recover
Superfund cleanup expenses (costs) from potentially responsible parties. When EPA conducts
such cleanup and oversight work, it takes actions to recover those costs from responsible parties.
We evaluated EPA's Superfund cost recovery and billing practices at a sample of NPL sites and
found that EPA regions have recovered $165 million of $294 million (56%) of the total Super-
fund costs from those sites. Potentially responsible parties at these sites have generally paid
what they have been billed, but EPA has not recovered as much as $129 million (44%) and has
determined it will not try to recover between $30 million and $90 million of this amount. This
situation indicates a potentially significant breakdown in controls over Superfund cost recovery.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2: We recommend the EPA Chief Financial Officer and the Assistant
Administrator for OECA work collaboratively to implement mechanisms to:
• Support calculation of site cost recovery efficiency - Track the resolution of each cost as
determined in the annual billing process. Resolutions could include billed, not billed for
a specified reason, and pending.
• Track corrections - Identify incorrect costs until they are corrected.
Both of these mechanisms could be implemented through enhancements to Superfund Cost
Recovery Package Imaging and On-Line System (SCORPIOS).
Status: EPA planned to explore ways to enhance information systems to develop a
mechanism that supports calculating cost-recovery efficiency and tracking error cor-
rections through identification and resolution. The agreed-to completion date was
December 31, 2008, the same day EPA proposed a new schedule for corrective action.
EPA plans to add a dropdown box to SCORPIOS highlighting the rationale for removing
Unbilled Costs. The SCORPIOS enhancements will be piloted in May 2009. In
November and December of 2009, EPA plans to develop reports to track both the
removal of Unbilled Costs and any corrections for timely inclusion in a billing package.
Recommendation 3: We recommend the EPA Chief Financial Officer and the Assistant
Administrator for OECA work collaboratively to implement mechanisms to implement
performance measures to track cost-recovery efficiency.
Status: EPA planned to convene a workgroup to address program efficiency measures.
OSWER and OECA agreed to assist OCFO with its developing and implementing a
viable cost-recovery efficiency measure. The agreed-to completion date was December
31, 2008. On March 23, 2009, EPA proposed a change in the corrective actions for this
recommendation. The OIG did not approve the change. EPA is considering further
revisions to its corrective action plan.
6
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OARM
Report Title: EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
Report No.: 08-P-0093 Date Issued: 02/26/2008
Report Summary
While EPA has paid contractors nearly $16 million in award fees over the past 10 years on the
nine contracts reviewed, it has no assurance that using Cost-Pi us-Award-Fee (CPAF) contracts
facilitates a higher level of performance than other types of contracts. EPA CPAF contracts
generally contain performance indicators tied to the Agency's mission. EPA consistently
provided contractors with high ratings and award fees. However, we could not determine if EPA
properly awarded fees because it did not sufficiently document the basis for the ratings. Because
EPA consistently provided high ratings, we believe award fees are more of an expectation for
contractors rather than a factor that motivates excellence. The report recommendations were
issued to OARM and Region 5. However, Region 5 has no past-due corrective actions recorded
in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM revise the
Contracts Management Manual to require that:
• a cost-benefit analysis be conducted prior to awarding a CPAF contract, and
• all CPAF contracts be approved by the contracting officer's Service Center Manager.
Status: OARM reported it revised the Contracts Management Manual, Chapter 16.1, Use
of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts, to require that each contract file include
documentation to show why the particular contract type was selected. In the event
Contracting Officers consider awarding CPAF contracts, they must confer with the
proper advisors, assess factors, and apply adequate analytical measures (cost-benefit
analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, etc.) prior to selecting CPAF contracts. The revised
chapter is on schedule to be published by April 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date
was September 30, 2008.
Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM revise the
Contracts Management Manual to require work assignment managers, project officers, contracting
officers, and Performance Evaluation Board members to explicitly document the basis for award-fee
decisions made.
Status: OARM reported it revised the Contracts Management Manual, Chapter 16.1, to
strengthen coordination in decision-making and documenting the basis for award-fee
decisions made. The Contracting Officer is responsible for reviewing the evaluation
report to ensure that the performance areas are evaluated in accordance with the
established criteria and the results support the award fee. The revised chapter is on
schedule to be published by April 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date was
September 30, 2008.
7
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OEI
Report Title: Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network
Report No.: 2007-P-00030 Date Issued: 08/20/2007
Report Summary
EPA established a partnership with the Exchange Network's governance bodies to assist them
with accomplishing Network initiatives. The Exchange Network is a secure Internet and
standards-based approach for exchanging environmental data and improving environmental
decisions. EPA, State environmental departments, U.S. tribes, and territories have acted as
partners in building the Network. By using Network nodes (interconnected computers), the
Network provides access to, and exchange of, environmental data. This node-to-node exchange
of data is intended to increase efficiency through automation and reduce reporting burden.
The Exchange Network Business Plan stresses the importance of having an effective
collaborative partnership between EPA, the Network governance bodies, and the Network
partners. Since EPA intends for the Exchange Network to become the preferred method for
exchanging environmental data and foresees expanding the Network, EPA should take steps to
improve Network use. Without taking action, EPA would not know when or whether its partners
would adopt the Network as the preferred method to share data with EPA. As such, EPA
investments in the Network would not yield the desired outcomes.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI have
the Director, Office of Information Collection, modify Exchange Network change management
policies and procedures to include step-by-step processes for fully testing and certifying all
implementation tools before release to the Exchange Network community.
Status: OEI reported that the Network Technical Group, an organization of State, tribal,
EPA representatives, and a subgroup of the Network Operations Board will perform this
function. It will take additional steps to develop and publish these procedures to the
Network Web site, http://www.exchangenetwork.net. The Network Technical Group
Fiscal Year 2008 work plan includes an update to the change management procedures to
reflect how the Group will test and certify Exchange Network tools. Therefore, the Group
will develop an updated set of change management procedures and post these to the
Exchange Network website. The agreed-to completion date was July 31, 2008. The
corrective action was completed on April 3, 2009. Since implementation of the
recommendation occurred after March 31, 2009, the Semiannual reporting period cut-off
date, we are including the recommendation in this Compendium.
Recommendation 4-2: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI work
with the Exchange Network governance bodies to develop procedures for establishing ad hoc
workgroups for Exchange Network projects.
Status: OEI stated that the Network Operations Board's Fiscal Year 2008 work plan
includes developing a process for engaging new Integrated Project Teams when they
form and for standardizing the guidance and expectations which are communicated to
them. The agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2008. OEI reports that rather
8
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
than procedures for Integrated Project Teams or workgroups, the Network Operations
Board and Network Technical Group have instead focused on creating and refining the
governance mechanisms for ensuring that the products created by ad hoc workgroups
meet the Exchange Network standards and guidance. OEI plans to propose and discuss
with the OIG a revised corrective action plan to reflect the changes in corrective actions
for this recommendation and the two following recommendations.
Recommendation 5-1: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI have
the Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, publish standards that specify when
EPA program offices must use the Exchange Network when modernizing or developing applications.
The standards should also specify the processes EPA offices must follow when the office cannot
adhere to the established standards or select an alternate technological solution to the one prescribed.
Status: OEI agreed to publish standards that specify when EPA program offices must use
the Exchange Network when modernizing or developing applications. The agreed-to
completion date was December 31, 2008. OEI reports that the "decision tree" approach
was abandoned as well as the deadlines and dates originally set related to it. Office of
Technology Operations and Planning and Office of Information Collection have instead
embarked on an information collection procedure under the enterprise architecture to
achieve this goal. Estimated completion will be December 2009. As explained above,
this corrective action change will be incorporated in the revised corrective action plan.
Recommendation 5-2: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI have
the Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, include the Exchange Network and
related technologies as part of the Agency's Enterprise Architecture.
Status: OEI reports that it has started defining "decision tree" logic for Enterprise tools
and completed high-level decision tree logic for data collection service for Central Data
Exchange, EPA's Node on the Exchange Network, and Portal. In addition, work is
underway on high-level decision tree logic for Identity and Access Management service.
EPA also intends to incorporate standards into Enterprise Architecture compliance
criteria dependent upon the timetable for recommendation 5-1 above. The agreed-to
completion date was December 31, 2008. OEI is expanding the action to include a new
element, the Information Sharing Segment Architecture, which EPA committed to OMB
to develop to specify more clearly how the Exchange Network/Central Data Exchange
works as a key aspect of EPA information sharing. This architecture, centered on the
Central Data Exchange, will further formalize the role and use of the Central Data
Exchange and Exchange Network. As explained above, this corrective action change will
be incorporated in the revised corrective action plan.
9
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Offices: OSWER
Report Title: EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to
Superfund Cleanups
Report No.: 2007-P-00026 Date Issued: 06/06/2007
Report Summary
Since the 1980s, EPA has used variations of the Superfund Alternative approach to clean up
Superfund NPL-equivalent hazardous waste sites. The NPL is a list of the Nation's highest
priority Superfund sites. The Superfund Alternative approach is an alternative to listing sites on
the NPL. Recent reviews have reported problems in EPA's managing and implementing the
Superfund Alternative approach. In our evaluation, we found EPA has not implemented
effective management tools or controls for the Superfund Alternative approach. The report
recommendations were issued to OSWER and OECA. However, OECA has no past-due
corrective actions reported in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER track and
report all Superfund Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures at Superfund
Alternative sites. This includes construction completions, final remedy selection, human
exposure under control, migration of contaminated groundwater under control, and site-wide
ready-for-reuse. Report GPRA measures at Superfund Alternative sites separately from GPRA
measures at NPL sites.
Status: OECA reported that OSWER now has the ability to track and report
accomplishments at sites with Superfund Alternative approach agreements and is
currently determining the format and recipients of the annual report. Completion is
expected in June 2009. The agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2008.
10
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OW
Report Title: EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up
Report No.: 2007-P-00025 Date Issued: 05/24/2007
Report Summary
Audit follow-up is essential to good management and is a shared responsibility of agency
managers and audit organizations. EPA has audit follow-up procedures and designated officials
who manage the process. We performed this review to determine (1) the status of corrective
actions responding to OIG report recommendations for selected water reports, and (2) how
complete and up-to-date is the MATS report information for selected OIG water reports. The
report recommendations were issued to OECA, OW, and OCFO. However, OECA and OCFO
have no past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for OW and OECA
require the Audit Management Officials and Audit Follow-up Coordinators to implement EPA
Order 2750, and biannually review audit management information including official files, to
ensure completeness and accuracy.
Status: OW planned that the Audit Management Officials and Audit Follow-up
Coordinators would continue to review all audit management information, including
official files, biannually. These reviews would be conducted every March and September
to coincide with the Agency's requirement under EPA Order 2750 and the Inspector
General Act to report to Congress on the status of completing corrective actions. OW
said it would make every effort to maintain the completeness and accuracy of the
information. OW planned that the Audit Follow-up Coordinators would develop and
present guidance materials to all potential OW officials on the Agency's requirement
under EPA Order 2750 by March 30, 2009. OECA completed its corrective action for
this recommendation.
11
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OEI
Report Title: EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software
Report No.: 2007-P-00008 Date Issued: 01/29/2007
Report Summary
EPA's OIG engaged KPMG, LLP, to conduct an audit of access to and modification of the
EPA's mainframe system software housed at the Agency's National Computer Center. The
National Computer Center is located at the Research Triangle Park campus in Raleigh, North
Carolina.
KPMG identified several weaknesses in EPA's internal controls over its mainframe system
software, including:
• Roles and responsibilities were not clearly assigned.
• Change controls were not performed in accordance with Agency policies.
• Policies, procedures, and guides could be strengthened.
• Security settings for sensitive datasets and programs were not effectively configured or
implemented.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 9: We recommend that the Director for OEI, Office of Technology
Operations and Planning, complete efforts to update the OEI Information Security Manual and
the EPA Information Security Manual. Subsequent to finalizing the changes, ensure the manuals
are (1) reviewed timely by EPA management for adequacy, accuracy, and completeness; and (2)
approved by EPA management in a timely manner.
Status: OEI reported that resource challenges, including human resource and acquisition
resource alignments, caused the original scheduled Agency Information Security
Procedural Handbook to be delayed. Dedicated EPA staff has been assigned and a
contract has been awarded. The Handbook is now scheduled for completion in June
2009.
As an interim stopgap while development of the Handbook was being planned, the EPA
Chief Information Officer (CIO) issued CIO Policy Transmittal 08-005: Agency Network
Security Policy, on November 11, 2007. This Policy provided the Agency with specific
references to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special
Publication (SP) 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of
Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-53 rl, Recommended Security Controls for
Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-100, Information Security Handbook: A
Guide for Managers', and several other related NIST publications.
12
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OEI
Report Title: EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and
Reporting Incidents
Report No.: 2007-P-00007 Date Issued: 01/11/2007
Report Summary
EPA uses contractors to collect and process information on its behalf. EPA's Computer Security
Incident Response Capability defines the formal process by which EPA responds to computer
security-related incidents. We found that EPA had not established procedures to ensure
identification of all contractor systems. Further, EPA had not ensured that information security
requirements were accessible for the contractors and appropriately maintained. Although EPA
offices were aware of the Agency's computer security incident response policy, many offices
lacked local reporting procedures, had not fully implemented automated monitoring tools, and
did not have access to network attack trend information necessary to implement proactive
defensive measures. The report was issued to OEI and OARM. However, OARM reported in
MATS that its one corrective action has been completed.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information develop and implement guidance that EPA offices can use to identify contractor
systems that contain EPA data.
Status: OEI reported that resource challenges, including human resource and acquisition
resource alignments, caused the original scheduled Agency Information Security
Procedural Handbook to be delayed. The agreed-to completion date for this corrective
action was September 18, 2008. Dedicated EPA staff has been assigned and a contract
has been awarded. The Handbook will address identifying, certifying, and accrediting
contractor systems acting on behalf of the Agency. A draft Agency Information Security
Manual has been presented to an Agency workgroup. The Handbook is now scheduled
for completion in June 2009.
As an interim stopgap while developing the Handbook was being planned, the CIO issued
CIO Policy Transmittal 08-005: Agency Network Security Policy, on November 11,
2007. This Policy provided the Agency with specific references to the NIST SP 800-37,
Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems;
NIST SP 800-53 rl, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems;
NIST SP 800-100, Information Security Handbook: A Guide for Managers, and several
other related NIST publications. The Policy also cited the Federal Information
Processing Standards Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal
Information and Information Systems, to address identifying government and contractor
systems acting on behalf of the government.
13
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OSWER, OARM
Report Title: Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina;
Future Improvement Opportunities Exist
Report No.: 2006-P-00038 Date Issued: 09/27/2006
Report Summary
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
EPA used existing emergency response contracts, in place at that time, to send numerous
personnel to the area and purchase equipment and services to support them. Although the
existing contracts allowed EPA to quickly respond to Hurricane Katrina, EPA still needed to
award some noncompetitive contracts, valued at about $9 million, during its Katrina response
efforts; we identified improvements EPA can make in future disaster responses. OARM reported
that it has completed the areas of Recommendations 2-1 and 4-1 (Bullets 2 and 5) within its
purview.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2-1: Recognizing that the Assistant Administrators for OSWER and OARM
have begun a process to improve EPA's response efforts for future catastrophic events based on
its Katrina experience, we recommend that the Assistant Administrators develop a strategy/plan
to deploy a sufficient number of contracting officers and other support personnel to an
emergency response area.
Status: EPA reported that it developed and provided initial training for a Response
Support Corps list of EPA Headquarters and regional personnel prepared to deploy to
future incidents of national significance. OSWER developed national guidance on the
training and exercise requirements for the Response Support Corps, which has been sent
out for review as part of the Agency's directives clearance process to be released as an
EPA Order. OSWER reports that even though the Order is not final, EPA regions and
Headquarters are following its requirements. OSWER expects the final Order to be
issued by May 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date was December 2006.
Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER, in
conjunction with OARM ensure that contract clauses to limit charges for contractor-owned
equipment flow down from the prime contract to the subcontracts.
Status: EPA reported in MATS that this recommendation was implemented. However, a
follow-up review by the OIG determined that the agreed-to clause had not been included
in a $32 million (ceiling value) logistics support contract awarded by OARM to support a
region's needs during emergencies. OARM reported that the clause has been written and
is in the final stages of review. The clause is on schedule to be inserted in the contract by
May 30, 2009.
Recommendation 4-1 (Bullet 2): Recognizing that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER has
begun a process to improve EPA's response efforts for future catastrophic events based on its
Katrina experience, and that the Assistant Administrator for OARM has initiated a similar
process for safeguarding equipment, we recommend that the Assistant Administrators for
14
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
OSWER and OARM consider providing a sufficient number of property specialists in the
affected areas early during the crisis
Status: Same as for Recommendation 2-1.
Recommendation 4-1 (Bullet 5): Recognizing that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER has
begun a process to improve EPA's response efforts for future catastrophic events based on its
Katrina experience, and that the Assistant Administrator for OARM has initiated a similar
process for safeguarding equipment, we recommend that the Assistant Administrators for
OSWER and OARM consider establishing a national custodial area in the Fixed Assets System
for future large-scale national disasters so that all equipment purchases can be recorded more
quickly and in a central location.
Status: OSWER reported that the Equipment Module is operational, and the regions and
special teams are receiving training and adding their data into the system. OSWER
expects full implementation by December 31, 2009. The agreed-to completion date was
December 31, 2006.
15
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Offices: OW
Report Title: EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments
Report No.: 2006-P-00016 Date Issued: 03/15/2006
Report Summary
Contaminated sediments are the soils, sands, organic matter, and other minerals that accumulate
at the bottom of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely affect
human health and the environment. We sought to determine the effectiveness and outcomes
achieved from EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. In particular, we evaluated
whether federal authorities and resources provided effective solutions, and how well EPA
measured strategy effectiveness and assessed contamination. The report recommendations were
issued to OSWER, OW, OECA, OA, and the Office of Research and Development. However,
OSWER, OECA, OA, and the Office of Research and Development have no past-due corrective
actions recorded in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW develop and
implement a plan for future National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS) reports that, consistent
with the Water Resources Development Act, provides a comprehensive national assessment of
the extent and severity of contaminated sediments. At a minimum the design should:
a. Use a statistical sampling approach as the basis for collecting data from EPA and other
sources and assessing the national extent and severity of contaminated sediments. As a
cost savings alternative, consider using statistical sampling in conjunction with existing
data for the national assessment. Improve the completeness and availability of sample
location information (metadata), quality assurance/quality control information, and
assessment parameters for future NSQS reports.
Status: OW planned to work with the Office of Research and Development to determine
if a statistical design for collecting contaminated sediment data would be practical. After
consultation, OW determined that the resources needed for designing and implementing a
survey for sediments would exceed the resources available for the program. As an
alternative, if the statistical design was determined to be impractical, OW agreed to work
with the Office of Research and Development to develop a design that provides the best
national assessment based on the available data. The agreed-to completion date was
spring 2007.
b. Ensure that the National Sediment Inventory and future NSQS reports include
contaminated sediment data from all major sources, including the Great Lakes National
Program Office and Superfund program. At a minimum, establish a formal coordination
process for acquiring contaminated sediment data from EPA program offices and
applicable agencies and organizations outside EPA. Also, consider cost-effective options
for acquiring and compiling contaminated sediment data maintained in paper format.
Status: OW has developed electronic transfer protocols that will allow other EPA
offices, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and States to enter
contaminated sediment data into EPA's Water Quality Exchange that can be used for the
16
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
next NSQS. OW also developed, with OSWER funds, an approach for incorporating
OSWER contaminated sediment data into Water Quality Exchange. Additionally, OW
plans to hold a workshop on the design of the next NSQS when resources become
available. The agreed-to completion date was summer 2007.
Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW determine a
reporting frequency for the NSQS report that is both useful for decision makers and achievable
for EPA, disclose to Congress that EPA cannot meet the current biennial reporting requirement
specified by Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act, and provide Congress an
alternative reporting schedule for consideration.
Status:
1. OW has consulted with Office of Research and Development experts on sediment
fate and transport to determine how much time, in general, it takes for sediment
contaminant concentrations to change such that the difference can be measured.
The analysis considered a representative literature compilation regarding the
range of deposition and degradation rates in several watersheds. This will help
OW to determine a reporting frequency based on science. The analysis was
completed in November 2007.
2. OW obtained preliminary information on the needs of other EPA programs for the
NSQS data and analysis. EPA expects that this issue will be a focus of
discussions in the Contaminated Sediment Data Committee and at the proposed
National Workshop. These discussions will enable OW to determine a reporting
frequency based on the real needs of programs for this information.
3. From the two actions above, OW will be able to make a recommendation for an
alternative reporting schedule.
17
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OSWER
Report Title: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources
Report No.: 2006-P-00013 Date Issued: 02/28/2006
Report Summary
The Superfund Trust Fund has decreased over the years so that in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 all
Superfund appropriations came from general tax revenue rather than the Trust Fund. Recent
studies have reported shortages in funding needs for Superfund, and have identified needed
improvements in how the program is managed. We performed this review in response to a
congressional request to evaluate Superfund expenditures at Headquarters and the regions.
EPA has been unable to allocate and manage Superfund resources for clean-up as efficiently and
effectively as possible because of the way the Agency accounts for program resources, manages
by functions, supplements the program with other funds, relies on an outdated workload model,
and maintains unliquidated Superfund obligations and funds in special accounts. Closely
aligning offices that support the Superfund program and producing program performance and
cost data have been limited because EPA disperses the responsibility for allocating and
managing program resources.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 2-3 - Accounting Definitions: We recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER that EPA should agree to define costs in a manner that supports
management decision making and improve their accounting of such resources to maximize
achieving program goals.
Status: OSWER reported in MATS that Recommendation 2-3 is partially implemented.
Two planned corrective actions addressed this recommendation. To support management
decision making, EPA modified Superfund E-Facts to reflect Superfund site cost data.
The module is available for use by EPA staff. This action is considered completed.
OCFO is determining if the Agency's new centralized financial management system will
solve the accounting definition issue. If not, OCFO may consider having system
adjustments made. The new centralized system is planned to be operational by October
1, 2010.
18
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OPPTS
Report Title: Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health through the
Food Quality Protection Act
Report No.: 2006-P-00009 Date Issued: 01/10/2006
Report Summary
We performed this review to examine the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 on
the EPA's need for scientific data and predictive tools, particularly in relation to children's
health. This report is the second in a series of three reports on the Act's impact on EPA
regarding children's health. We specifically sought in this review to determine:
• What data requirements were required by the Food Quality Protection Act;
• Whether testing guidelines, requirements, and evaluation procedures allow EPA's Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to determine the potential adverse effects of pesticide
exposure on the developing nervous system;
• What challenges OPP overcame and what opportunities exist for OPP to acquire better
pesticide exposure data to aggregate risks;
• What challenges exist and what opportunities are available for OPP to improve
cumulative risk assessments; and
• What opportunities exist to better manage pesticide health risk for children.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OPPTS
update the dietary exposure databases used in probabilistic models for risk assessments as soon
as the food consumption data from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey become available in 2006. EPA should also update the Food Commodity Intake
Database with the latest food consumption survey data, and if possible use data such as the
Gerber Products Company's Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study.
Status: OPP planned to update the food consumption data in 2006 when the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services released the
2003 and 2004 food intake data sets. The agreed-to completion date was December
2006. OPP reports that it is working on updating the food consumption data. OPP
statisticians are developing strategies for combining surveys from different sets of years
in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to develop a database of
adequate size. OPP is working with ORD and OW toward incorporating an updated
Food Commodity Intake Database into OPP's exposure and risk assessment software.
OPP anticipates completing the actions for this recommendation by spring 2009.
19
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OPEI
Report Title: Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
Report No.: 2006-P-00001 Date Issued: 10/04/2005
Report Summary
This report responded to a congressional request that the OIG evaluate the process for
developing the EPA's 2003 proposed rule for regulating disposable and reusable solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes. The OIG found the following regarding specific concerns
presented to us by Congress related to EPA rulemaking for industrial wipes:
• EPA met all legal and internal requirements for rulemaking when it developed the
industrial wipes proposed rule. EPA complied with the Administrative Procedure Act,
which establishes requirements for rulemaking.
• EPA officials and staff had extensive contact with representatives of the industrial
laundry industry, but also had extensive contacts with disposable wipes industry
representatives and others. No one indicated they were excluded from the rulemaking
process. EPA allowed active public involvement through meetings, telephone calls,
e-mails, and letters.
• The industrial laundry industry exerted considerable influence on the aspect of the
proposed rule to exclude reusable wipes from solid waste regulations. However, we
found no evidence that the influence was illegal or inconsistent with EPA's standard
business practice of obtaining input from stakeholders.
Although the recommendations in this report were originally addressed to OPEI and OSWER,
OPEI became the lead action office and is responsible for the unimplemented recommendation.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER, in
collaboration with OPEI and the Agency's Regulatory Steering Committee, develop a guidance
document that discusses how to avoid favoritism and the appearance of favoritism in Agency
actions, including the development of rules.
Status: OPEI planned to issue the guidance in 2006. Upon further consideration, OPEI
decided to address the issue with a memorandum to Agency senior managers directing
them to "resources currently available to EPA rulewriters and action developers on
maintaining an open and fair dialogue with stakeholders and other interested parties."
The memorandum was issued on January 14, 2008, and is available on EPA's Intranet
site. It is incorporated into the Action Development Process and training for rulewriters
Agency-wide. On October 17, 2008, OPEI requested approval from the OIG for this
change in the corrective action plan. The OIG determined that the actions taken and
described did not meet the intent of Recommendation 4-1. The OIG did not approve the
change and offered to meet to discuss other alternative actions.
20
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OECA
Report Title: Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes
EPA's Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance
Report No.: 2005-P-00024 Date Issued: 09/19/2005
Report Summary
To enforce its regulations and achieve maximum compliance, a regulatory agency must know its
entire regulated universe. We sought to determine how well OECA knows the composition and
size of its regulated universe, as well as how OECA determines and reports compliance levels.
We found OECA has limited knowledge of the diverse regulated universe for which it maintains
responsibility. OECA has not updated its universe table since generating it in 2001, even though
some universe figures for reviewed program areas have changed substantially. Various data
quality issues impact OECA's ability to adequately identify the size of its regulated universe and
associated compliance information. OECA concentrates most of its regulatory activities on large
entities and knows little about the identities or cumulative impact of small entities.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA develop an
objective of having the most up-to-date and reliable data on all entities that fall under its
regulatory responsibility. OECA should adopt the goals of requiring States to track, record, and
report data for entities over which States have regulatory responsibility. To achieve this goal,
OECA should develop a multi-State, multi-program pilot program of collecting data that States
track, record, verify, and report.
Status: EPA agreed to develop a policy, in collaboration with States, for data to be
collected and tracked by States for the Clean Water Act-National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program in the Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS)-NPDES. EPA does not plan to conduct a multi-program pilot. On April 30, 2007,
EPA distributed a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement to the Environmental Council of
States and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
for review and comment. The original planned completion date for this recommendation
was July 2006. However, EPA determined that undergoing a rule-making process is
necessary and is pursuing a rule to address this recommendation. On March 17, 2009,
OECA requested an extension to the milestone date for this recommendation to
November 30, 2010. The OIG decision is pending.
21
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OEI
Report Title: Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA's Remote Access Methods Need
Improvement
Report No.: 2005-P-00011 Date Issued: 03/22/05
Report Summary
Remote access is the connecting to EPA's data communications network from alternate locations
not directly connected to the network. Two key methods of attaining remote access are through
an Internet browser via Web-Mail or through a BlackBerry, which is a wireless handheld device.
We found that system administrators did not configure EPA's Web-Mail and BlackBerry servers
to provide secure remote access to the Agency's network and did not configure or update 59
percent of the Web-Mail and BlackBerry servers to mitigate vulnerabilities. We also found
several of the Agency's BlackBerry devices were not adequately configured, secured, or
monitored; devices that had no password enabled or had functionality that would allow users to
disable passwords; and devices left unattended in workstation cubicles. Consequently,
confidentiality and integrity of EPA data, as well as the availability of the network, was at risk of
unintentional or intentional exploitation.
Unimplemented Recommendations
OEI previously reported in MATS that all corrective actions in response to the recommendations
in this audit report were completed. However, due to recent follow-up work by the OIG, OEI
has re-opened this audit and is implementing corrective actions in concert with the OIG's Office
of Mission Systems. A formal corrective action plan is expected from OEI after the OIG's
follow-up report is issued.
22
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OAR
Report Title: Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V
Permits If Program Goals Are to Be Fully Realized
Report No.: 2005-P-00010 Date Issued: 03/09/2005
Report Summary
Title V of the Clean Air Act, designed to reduce violations and improve enforcing air pollution
laws for the largest sources of air pollution, requires that all major stationary sources of air
pollutants obtain a permit to operate. More than 17,000 sources are subject to Title V permit
requirements. Our analysis identified concerns with five key aspects of Title V permits:
(1) permit clarity, (2) statements of basis, (3) monitoring provisions, (4) annual compliance
certifications, and (5) practical enforceability. One finding in particular relates to compliance
certifications and wording on credible evidence. When EPA amended the rule on continuous or
intermittent compliance,1 a key clause on credible evidence was inadvertently left out.
(Recommendation 2-2 addresses this issue.)
Collectively, these problems can hamper the ability of EPA, State and local regulators, and the
public to understand what requirements sources are subject to, how they will be measured, and
ultimately to hold sources accountable for meeting applicable air quality requirements. EPA's
oversight and guidance of Title V activities have resulted in some improvements in Title V
programs; however, areas needing further improvement remain.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR develop and
issue guidance or rulemaking on annual compliance certification content which requires
responsible officials to certify compliance with all applicable terms and conditions of the permit,
as appropriate.
Status: EPA stated in MATS that, based on recommendations from the Clean Air Act
Advisory Group Task Force on Title V Implementation, the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards has begun developing a guidance document that will include,
among other topics, guidance on compliance certifications. However, EPA has not
submitted a formal action plan, stating how it plans to address this recommendation, to
the OIG for approval.
Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR issue the draft
rule regarding intermittent versus continuous monitoring as it relates to annual compliance
certifications and including credible evidence.
Status: EPA did not concur with this recommendation, and it remains unresolved. The
Agency plans to provide additional information and request that the OIG reconsider
Recommendation 2-2. The OIG believes this recommendation is key to knowing the
basis of the permittee's reported compliance with the terms and conditions of its Title V
permit that underlies its annual compliance certification.
1 40 Code of Federal Regulations 70.6 (c)(5)(iii)(B)
23
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Recommendation 2-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR develop
nationwide guidance or rulemaking, as appropriate, on the contents of statements of basis which
includes discussions of monitoring, operational requirements, regulatory applicability
determinations, explanations of any conditions from previously issued permits that are not being
transferred to the Title V permit, discussions of streamlining requirements, and other factual
information, where advisable, including a listing of prior Title V permits issued to the same
applicant at the plant, attainment status, and construction, permitting, and compliance history of
the plant.
Status: OAR plans to work with the regions to disseminate information about the
positions EPA has taken on statements of basis in response to citizens programs and
permit petitions. OAR also intends to develop a plan for identifying and sharing with
permitting agencies those statements of basis that represent "best practices." This effort
is planned to be included in guidance documentation addressing Recommendation 2-1.
However, EPA has not submitted a formal action plan, stating how it plans to address this
recommendation, to the OIG for approval.
Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR promulgate
the draft order of sanctions rule which provides notice to State and local agencies, as well as the
public, regarding the actions that will be taken when Notices of Deficiency are not timely
resolved by State and local Title V permitting authorities.
Status: EPA did not concur with this recommendation, and it remains unresolved. The
Agency plans to provide additional information and request that the OIG reconsider
Recommendation 3-1. The OIG believes this issue involves basic program criteria
needed for EPA to oversee the Title V program.
24
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OW
Report Title: EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program
Report No.: 2004-P-00030 Date Issued: 09/28/2004
Report Summary
The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the Nation's sewer systems that characterized
the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured. Since the middle of the 1990s,
there has been little change in the volume of a broad list of toxic pollutants transferred to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works or in the index of risk associated with these pollutants. As a
result, the performance of EPA's pretreatment program, which is responsible for controlling
these discharges, is threatened, and progress has stalled toward achieving the Clean Water Act
goal of eliminating toxic discharges that can harm water quality.
The curtailing of the early gains may be explained in part by two factors: (1) dischargers that
developed systems in response to EPA's initial program requirements have not enhanced their
pretreatment systems in recent years, and (2) the rate at which EPA has been issuing effluent
guidelines dramatically declined since 1990. Without more visible leadership from
Headquarters, improved programmatic information, and adopting results-based performance
measures, EPA's pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it made in its early years.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OW direct
staff to develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for developing pretreatment
results-based measurements; determine the resources necessary to carry out the strategy; and
gain the support of other Agency, State, and Publicly Owned Treatment Works staff to carry out
the strategy.
Status: OW agreed to request information on databases used by the EPA regions and
States to store information regarding Publicly Owned Treatment Works pretreatment
program performance. Through the Permitting for Results process, OW will compile
information regarding current data systems used to store pretreatment data at the EPA
regional and State level. OW intends to use this information to identify inaccurate data
and target data correction in the Permit Compliance System. Both of these activities are
crucial to facilitate migrating and retaining data as EPA transitions to the Integrated
Compliance Information System. Once these efforts are complete, OW will be able to
determine a long-term strategy based on data availability and resources, which should
ultimately assist EPA in developing pretreatment result-based measurements. The
agreed-to completion date was September 2007.
Although OW reported that the schedule for the ICIS-NPDES has been delayed, EPA has
meanwhile obtained input from State and Publicly Owned Treatment Works partners on a
draft framework for a technical handbook describing environmental benefits achieved by
implementation of the Pretreatment Program. EPA also participated in a roundtable
discussion on Pretreatment Program performance measures with States and Publicly
Owned Treatment Works.
25
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Action Office: OECA
Report Title: State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective
Report No.: 2001-P-00013 Date Issued: 08/14/2001
Report Summary
The objective of the audit was to determine whether State enforcement of Clean Water Act
discharge programs protect human health and the environment. Forty-four States play a major
role in implementing the Clean Water Act's NPDES program. These States have EPA approval
to issue and enforce permits that set limits on pollutants that can be discharged into our Nation's
surface waters. The OIG evaluated State enforcement of discharge programs in three regions;
within each region, we evaluated one EPA-approved State program. We also took into account
information from five State audits.
The OIG believes that State enforcement programs could be much more effective in deterring
noncompliance with discharge permits and, ultimately, improving the quality of the Nation's
water. EPA and the States have been successful in reducing point source pollution since the
Clean Water Act passed in 1972. However, despite tremendous progress, nearly 40 percent of
the Nation's assessed waters are not meeting the standards States have set for them.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA accelerate
the development of the Interim Data Exchange Format for the Permit Compliance System. Also,
before proceeding further into design and development, work with OW to ensure there is an up-
to-date policy statement for water system criteria.
Status: OECA reported that the Interim Data Exchange Format was successful for States
that pass their data into the Permit Compliance System. EPA is not investing any
additional resources for flowing data to the Permit Compliance System, but is focusing
on an improved process for batch flow into ICIS-NPDES. The policy was opposed by
States. Therefore, OECA is pursuing a rule to require submission of the data by States.
The agreed-to completion date was February/March 2002. On March 17, 2009, OECA
requested extending the milestone date for this recommendation to November 30, 2010.
The OIG decision is pending.
Recommendation 3-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA continue to
report the Permit Compliance System as an Agency-level weakness until the modernization
project is implemented and the system data is reasonably accurate and complete.
Status: OECA monitors/tracks this effort as part of the Agency's Annual Assurance
process. Under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, OECA tracks the Permit
Compliance System as an Agency-level weakness. This weakness will be a reportable
weakness under the Act until Fiscal Year 2013, and will be monitored as part of the Act
until such time it is successfully implemented, or the Agency's Administrator determines
it is appropriate to remove as an Agency-level weakness. OECA had planned for the data
requirements to be finalized in July 2002 and system design specifications in September
2002. The agreed-to completion date was for the end of Fiscal Year 2003. On March 17,
26
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
2009, OECA requested extending the milestone date for this recommendation to
December 31, 2013. The OIG decision is pending.
Recommendation 3-5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA revise
guidance to specify that whole effluent toxicity violations are significant violations. Revise
regulations to require whole effluent toxicity violations to be reported on quarterly
noncompliance reports.
Status: OECA reported that its success in meeting this recommendation depends on
OW's progress in developing new whole effluent toxicity permit guidance. OW has
deferred its work on this guidance indefinitely, and OECA has requested written
documentation of this decision from OW. OECA has been unable to obtain this
documentation to date. Consequently, OECA does not plan to consider issuing new
whole effluent toxicity enforcement guidance at this time. OECA had planned for the
guidance to be issued in 2003. On March 17, 2009, OECA requested extending the
milestone date for this recommendation to April 30, 2009. The OIG decision is pending.
27
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Appendix A
OIG Reports with Unimplemented Recommendations
by Program Office
as of March 31, 2009
OAR
2005-P-00010, Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V Permits If Program Goals
Are to Be Fully Realized
OARM
08-P-0093, EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina; Future Improvement
Opportunities Exist
OCFO
08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money
OECA
08-P-0141, EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements
08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money
2005-P-00024, Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes EPA's Ability to Demonstrate
Changes in Regulatory Compliance
2001-P-00013, State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective
OEI
2007-P-00030
2007-P-00008
2007-P-00007
2005-P-00011
OA/OPEI
2006-P-00001, Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
, Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network
, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software
, EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
, Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA's Remote Access Methods Need Improvement
28
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
OP PTS
2006-P-00009, Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health through the Food Quality Protection
Act
OSWER
2007-P-00026, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups
2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina; Future Improvement
Opportunities Exist
2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources
ow
2007-P-00025, EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up
2006-P-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments
2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program
29
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
Appendix B
Unimplemented Recommendations
10/31/08 Compendium Compared to Current Compendium
Continuing Unimplemented Recommendations
08-P-0093, EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts (Recommendations 2-1,2-2)
2007-P-00026, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups
(Recommendation 3-1)
2007-P-00025, EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up (Recommendation 1)
2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software (Recommendation 9)
2007-P-00007, EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
(Recommendation 2-1)
2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina; Future Improvement
Opportunities Exist (Recommendations 2-1,4-l(bullet 5))
2006-P-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments (Recommendations
3-1,3-2)
2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources (Recommendation 2-3)
2006-P-00009, Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health through the Food Quality Protection
Act (Recommendation 4-1)
2006-P-00001, Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes (Recommendation 4-1)
2005-P-00024, Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes EPA's Ability to Demonstrate
Changes in Regulatory Compliance (Recommendation 2-4)
2005-P-00010, Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V Permits If Program Goals
Are to Be Fully Realized (Recommendations 2-1,2-2,2-3,3-1)
2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program (Recommendation 4-1)
2001-P-00013, State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective (Recommendations
3-2,3-4, 3-5)
New Unimplemented Recommendations
08-P-0141, EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements (Recommendations 1,5)
08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money (Recommendations 2,3)
2007-P-00030, Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network (Recommendations
2-2,4-2, 5-1, 5-2)
30
-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009
(Report No. 09-N-0148)
2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina; Future Improvement
Opportunities Exist (Recommendations 3-2,4-l(bullet 2))
2005-P-00011, Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA's Remote Access Methods Need Improvement (OIG
currently conducting follow-up audit)
Removed Unimplemented Recommendations
08-1-0032, Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements (Recommendations
29, 30)
2007-P-00035, EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy Program Management Controls (Recommendation 5)
2007-P-00028, ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity of the Label
(Recommendation 3-1)
2007-P-00026, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups
(Recommendations 2-2,3-2)
2007-P-00013, Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management to Ensure Value
(Recommendation 3-4)
2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software (Recommendations 3,5)
2006-P-00027, EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific Sites (Recommendations
1,4,5,6)
2006-P-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments (Recommendation
2-4)
2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources (Recommendation 2-5)
2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program (Recommendation 4-3)
2003-P-00012, EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for
Improvement (Incorrectly closed out in MATS)
2001-P-00013, State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective (Recommendation 3-1)
31
------- |