£
<
3)
\
Ml
r"
PRdrt^
D
2
LU
O
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Compendium of
Unimplemented Recommendations
as of September 30, 2008
Report No. 09-P-0014
October 31, 2008

-------
Abbreviations
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
NCC	National Computer Center
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
ORD	Office of Research and Development
OSWER	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OTOP	Office of Technology Operations and Planning
OW	Office of Water
PCS	Permit Compliance System
RMDS	Resource Management and Directives System
SA	Superfund Alternative
SP	Special Publication

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
October 31, 2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
Report No. 09-P-0014
Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Office of General Counsel
Chief Financial Officer
Associate Administrators
Attached is the first Semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations 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 Agency 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.
We are encouraged by the increasing level of interest and involvement of the Agency Audit
Follow-up Coordinators and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer in this Compendium and
the audit follow-up process. We have already seen measurable improvements in the awareness
of, accountability for, and action on 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
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 to be a useful tool in identifying ways to further improve Agency operations.
Bill A. Roderick
Deputy Inspector General

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Table of Contents
Introduction		1
Unimplemented Recommendations		4
OIG Report Number
08-P-0093 		4
08-1-0032		6
2007-P-00035 		7
2007-P-00028 		8
2007-P-00026 		9
2007-P-00025 		11
2007-P-00013 		12
2007-P-00008 		13
2007-P-00007 		15
2006-P-00038 		16
2006-P-00027 		17
2006-P-00016 		19
2006-P-00013 		21
2006-P-00009 		23
2006-P-00001 		25
2005-P-00024 		26
2005-P-00010 		27
2004-P-00030 		29
2003-P-00012 		31
2001-P-00013 		32
Appendix A: OIG Reports with Unimplemented
Recommendations by Program Office		34

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 April 1, 2008, through September 30, 2008. 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 complete and certified, the Agency may inactivate that
report's MATS file and it must no longer be tracked by the Audit Follow-up Coordinator. In
general, the Agency self certifies that corrective actions are complete without third party post-
certification review. The Agency is also responsible under the Inspector General Act for
1

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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.
On December 7, 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked the
OIG to send the Oversight Committee a description of unimplemented recommendations in OIG
reports issued to EPA from January 2001 to December 2007, including specific information on
each recommendation.
The OIG provided the requested information on unimplemented recommendations to the
Oversight Committee on February 29, 2008. Additionally, the OIG issued a report to the Agency
on March 31, 2008 (Report No. 08-P-0123, http://www.epa.gOv/oig/reports/2008/20080331-08-
P-0123-rv.pdf) comprising the information provided to the Committee. This Compendium of
Unimplemented Recommendations is an updated and expanded version of the previous reports
issued to the Oversight Committee and the Agency.
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 March 31, 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, and 2000. 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.
2

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
•	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.
The Compendium includes 20 reports and lists 40 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 September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Unimplemented Recommendations
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 the use of Cost-Plus-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 was
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 concurred that some form of a cost-benefit analysis should be done prior
to awarding a CPAF contract. OARM reported it is in the process of revising 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 a Contracting Officer considers awarding a CPAF
contract, they must confer with the proper advisors (legal, financial management, etc.),
assess factors (price competition, price analysis, cost analysis, requirement type and
complexity, etc.), and apply adequate analytical measures (cost-benefit analysis, cost-
effectiveness analysis, etc.) prior to selecting a CPAF contract. Internal comments on the
draft chapter have been received. Once these comments are resolved, the revised chapter
will be distributed for Agency-wide comments through the Agency's Directives
Clearance process. The planned completion date was September 30, 2008, but it is
anticipated that the final Contracts Management Manual chapter will be approved by
March 30, 2009.
Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management revise the Contracts Management Manual to require work assignment
4

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
managers, project officers, contracting officers, and Performance Evaluation Board members to
explicitly document the basis for award-fee decisions made.
Status: OARM reported it is in the process of revising 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 the performance areas are evaluated in
accordance with the established criteria and the results support the award fee. The
revised chapter will be distributed for Agency-wide comments through the Agency's
Directives Clearance process. The planned completion date was September 30, 2008, but
it is anticipated that the final Contracts Management Manual chapter will be approved by
March 30, 2009.
5

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OCFO
Report Title: Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial
Statements
Report No.:	08-1-0032	Date Issued: 11/15/2007
Report Summary
Our primary objectives for the financial statements audit were to determine whether: EPA's
consolidated financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects, EPA's internal
controls over financial reporting were in place, and EPA management complied with applicable
laws and regulations. Although the Agency received a clean opinion, we noted one material
weakness with EPA's implementation of the "Currently Not Collectible" policy for accounts and
noted six significant deficiencies. EPA was in noncompliance with regulations relating to
reconciling intragovernmental transactions.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 29: We recommend that the OCFO continue to reconcile the Agency's
intragovernmental transactions and make appropriate adjustments to comply with federal
financial reporting requirements.
Status: While the Agency has worked with its trading partners to reduce differences, the
OIG found that material differences in transaction amounts continue to exist. The
planned completion date was 12/31/07.
Recommendation 30: We recommend that the OCFO use the resolution dispute process to
work with its trading partners on the treatment of accounting and accrual methodology
differences.
Status: OCFO reported that the dispute resolution process is not yet operational. The
Chief Financial Officer's Council (utilizing an Interagency Workgroup) has not yet
established the Dispute Resolution Board. Once established, the Dispute Resolution
process will be used as a last resort when cooperation cannot be obtained from OCFO's
trading partners in reconciling differences, and use of the Dispute Resolution process will
be for material differences only. OCFO has used the Quarterly Interagency Material
Difference Report for reconciling differences with other federal agencies but there are
still differences. The planned completion date was 4/30/08.
6

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OEI
Report Title: EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy Program Management Controls
Report No.:	2007-P-00035	Date Issued: 09/17/2007
Report Summary
We sought to determine what steps EPA took to protect Personally Identifiable Information and
the extent to which EPA put in place a management structure over the Agency's Privacy
Program. We found that EPA needs to set up a more comprehensive management control
structure to govern and oversee the program. EPA needs to update its Privacy Program policies
and establish processes to manage and make these policies available to responsible EPA
personnel. Also, EPA needs to set up compliance and accountability processes to ensure
adherence with key Privacy Program tenets. A major loss of privacy information could result in
substantial harm, embarrassment, and inconvenience to individuals. The report
recommendations were issued to OARM and OEI, but OARM has no past-due corrective actions
recorded in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 5: We recommend that the EPA Office of Environmental Information's
Director, Office of Information Collection, identify positions/job types with key Privacy
Program responsibilities and develop appropriate sample cascading goals and objectives that
EPA managers can use to establish Privacy Program accountability processes within their
respective offices. Provide the developed guidance to the Office of Human Resources prior to
distributing to Agency personnel for incorporation into the Agency's Performance Appraisal and
Recognition System.
Status: OEI has identified positions with key Privacy Program responsibilities on the
Privacy Program intranet site. In addition, the EPA Chief Information Officer reported
that OEI is working with the Office of Human Resources to finalize sample privacy
cascading goals and objectives, which will be incorporated into the Agency's
Performance Appraisal and Recognition System guidance documents and made available
on the Office of Human Resources' Website. The planned completion date was May
2008.
7

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OAR
Report Title: ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity
of the Label
Report No.:	2007-P-00028	Date Issued: 08/01/2007
Report Summary
The ENERGY STAR Product Labeling Program identifies and promotes energy-efficient
products. To ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the ENERGY STAR program and the
integrity of its label, EPA established several processes. These processes include product
specification setting and revision, product self-certification, product verification testing, and
label utilization monitoring. We reviewed these processes and found improvements could be
made that could better assure the integrity of the ENERGY STAR label for the consumer of
home and office products.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Air and Radiation clarify the decision criteria and document the process for
revising an ENERGY STAR specification, including identifying circumstances when a
specification revision would not be revised, despite a high market share of qualified products.
Status: EPA stated that it has revised ENERGY STAR Specification Development
Guiding Principles. However, EPA reports that completion of the corrective action has
been delayed because of the need to reach agreement with the Department of Energy on
the clarification OIG has requested. The agreed-to planned completion date was
March 31, 2008.
8

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Offices: OECA, 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 (SA) approach to clean
up Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) equivalent hazardous waste sites. The NPL is a list
of the Nation's highest priority Superfund sites. The SA approach is an alternative to listing sites
on the NPL. Recent reviews have reported problems in EPA's managing and implementing the
SA approach. In our evaluation, we found EPA has not implemented effective management
tools or controls for the SA approach.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for OECA and for
OSWER collaborate to develop specific instructions on when to use the SA designation (e.g., for
sites or agreements) and update the Superfund Program Implementation Manual accordingly.
The instructions should include provisions that state the SA site flag should not be removed even
if the site is deleted, cleaned up, or proposed for the NPL, so that controls over documentation of
SA sites are maintained.
Status: OECA reported that the Agency is updating the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual so the individual SA approach agreements can be identified, and
sites that have SA approach agreements can be identified. When an indicator is tied
directly to the SA approach agreement, that indicator will stay on the agreement even if
the site itself is ultimately cleaned up under another approach. Completion is anticipated
no later than March 31, 2009. The planned, agreed-to completion date was
September 30, 2008.
Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER track and
report all Superfund Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures at SA 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 SA sites separately from GPRA measures at NPL sites.
Status: OECA reported that the Agency will compile a separate report for GPRA
measures at sites with SA approach agreements that address site-wide contamination as
part of its routine end of the fiscal year reporting. The Fiscal Year 2008 report should be
available soon. The planned, agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2008.
Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER revise
applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to reflect that these performance measures will be
tracked and reported for SA sites.
9

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Status: OECA reported that the Agency is updating the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual and that the manual is the primary mechanism for educating the
regions on changes to data reporting. In addition, changes and implementation issues are
discussed at national meetings with information and program managers and on monthly
conference calls with the regional information management coordinators. Completion is
anticipated no later than March 31, 2009. The planned, agreed-to completion date was
September 30, 2008.
10

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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, on a biannual basis. 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 officials of Water program's Action
Officials on the Agency's requirement under EPA Order 2750 by March 21, 2008.
11

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OPEI
Report Title: Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management
to Ensure Value
Report No.:	2007-P-00013	Date Issued: 03/29/2007
Report Summary
Performance Track is a public-private partnership that encourages member facilities to improve
the environment through using environmental management systems, local public outreach, and
public reporting for results. The OIG sought to determine how Performance Track contributes to
achieving environmental goals, how well it recognizes and encourages environmental leadership,
and how the program tracks performance.
We found that Performance Track did not have clear plans that connected activities with its
goals, and did not have performance measures that show if it achieves anticipated results. The
program tied an EPA goal to member commitments, but only 2 of 30 sampled Performance
Track members met all of their environmental improvement commitments. In addition, members
did not have access to some program benefits.
Unimplemented Recommendation
Recommendation 3-4: We recommend that the Associate Administrator for OPEI design a
comprehensive, strategic program plan to connect activities with goals and to encourage staff and
management to focus on program goals and member commitments.
Status: OPEI reported that it has completed the draft strategic plan and is in the process
of receiving final comments. Final action is expected by November 15, 2008. This
recommendation was originally planned for completion by December 2007.
12

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 (NCC). The
NCC 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 Recommendations
Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Director for Office of Technology Operations and
Planning (OTOP), OEI, issue a memorandum to the NCC reinforcing management's
responsibility for complying with applicable Agency policy for system change management.
Status: In response to the Discussion Draft of this Compendium, OEI reported that it has
implemented this recommendation. OEI approved an updated NCC IBM Enterprise
Server Change Management Directive 210.04 on October 16, 2008, and distributed a
signed memorandum to the Hosting and Storage Solutions staff requiring all staff to
review and follow the revised directive. The revised directive requires review and
authorization of proposed changes and verification that changes have been successfully
implemented. Since implementation of the recommendation occurred after
September 30, 2008, the Semiannual reporting period cut-off date, we are including the
recommendation in this Compendium.
Recommendation 5: We recommend that the Director for OEI-OTOP update the Enterprise
Server Standards and Procedures to include procedures for documenting mainframe change
management decisions. Ensure the procedures include identifying and documenting (1) the steps
management uses to identify the changes to implement and (2) management's assessment of the
impact of planned changes on the security and reliability of the mainframe processing
environment.
Status: Same as for Recommendation 3.
13

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Recommendation 9: We recommend that the Director for OEI-OTOP 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 March
2009.
As an interim stop gap 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.
14

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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.
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 planned, 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 identification and certification
and accreditation of contractor systems acting on behalf of the Agency and is now
scheduled for completion in March 2009.
As an interim stop gap while development of 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 identification of government and
contractor systems acting on behalf of the government.
15

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OSWER
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, and we identified improvements EPA can make in future disaster responses. The report
was issued to OARM and OSWER. However, OARM reported in MATS that all its corrective
actions have been completed.
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. The Order is expected to be final in December 2008. The agreed-to
completion date was December 2006.
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: EPA reported that the Incident Management Handbook final version outlines the
roles of key positions. OSWER stated that the equipment tracking application was
moved into production in January 2007. EPA has been reviewing and modifying the
design of the system, as well as populating the equipment data incrementally by all the
Regions and warehouses. The system is expected to be in full use by December 2009.
The agreed-to completion date was December 2006.
16

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OCFO
Report Title: EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific Sites
Report No.:	2006-P-00027	Date Issued: 07/31/2006
Report Summary
EPA has the authority through the Superfund program to respond directly to releases of
hazardous substances and seek recovery of its costs on a site-specific basis from the responsible
parties. EPA obligates costs not readily identifiable to a site to the general site identifier "WQ,"
and upon payment redistributes the costs to specific sites. We found EPA did not make timely
redistributions of Superfund cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, and small purchase
payments from the general site identifier "WQ" to the specific Superfund sites or other general
site identifiers. As of January 2006, $39 million was recorded in "WQ" for those funding
vehicles and undistributed for periods ranging from 2 months to 10 years. Without
redistribution, the funds may not be recovered from responsible parties and be available for
future site clean-up activities. Subsequent to our audit, EPA indicated the undistributed "WQ"
was reduced. Report recommendations were issued to OARM, OCFO, and OSWER. However,
OARM and OSWER reported in MATS that they have completed their corrective actions.
On August 25, 2008, the OIG issued a follow-up audit report (Report No. 08-P-0236) on the
Agency's implementation of corrective actions taken in response to Report No. 2006-P-00027,
and found the corrective actions had not been completed. EPA submitted a revised corrective
action plan for Report No. 2006-P-00027 as part of its response to the follow-up report. The
OIG agreed to the revised plan.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 1: We recommend that OCFO, OSWER, and OARM, as agreed, develop
written procedures for implementing EPA's Superfund site-specific accounting policies related
to the general site identifier "WQ," including a timeliness standard for redistributions for each
funding vehicle, an explanation of project officers' responsibilities, monitoring procedures, and
"WQ" cost reviews at the time of closeout. Develop a standard format for project officers of
interagency agreements to transmit cost redistribution information to the Cincinnati Finance
Center.
Status: Under EPA's revised corrective action plan, all policies related to Superfund
Direct Site Charging will be contained in an updated Chapter 2 of the Resource
Management and Directives System (RMDS) 2550D. The new agreed-to milestone date
for implementation was July 31, 2008. Updated RMDS 2550D, Chapter 2, is currently in
the Agency's Directives Clearance process. Comments on the chapter are being
reviewed, and the policy is expected to be issued in November 2008.
Recommendation 4: We recommend that OSWER and OARM complete ongoing efforts to
change the cooperative agreement conditions to require the recipient to provide site-specific cost
details within 24 hours of drawing down funds, and enforce those conditions.
17

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Status: OCFO reported that OCFO, OARM, and OSWER worked together to provide
Award Officials a national programmatic term and condition to be included in future
grants. The term and condition language has been incorporated into the draft policy that
was submitted for RMDS clearance. See status for Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 5: We recommend that OSWER and OARM amend the closeout process for
cooperative agreements to include procedures to verify that "WQ" costs are redistributed.
Status: Same as for Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 6: We recommend that OSWER and OARM promote accountability for
"WQ" redistributions among project officers and finance office personnel.
Status: Same as for Recommendation 1.
18

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Offices: OSWER, 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 was issued to OSWER,
OW, OECA, OA, and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). However, OECA, OA,
and ORD have no past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS.
Unimplemented Recommendations
Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OSWER use
the watershed approach, including concepts from the Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative, at
contaminated sediment National Priorities List sites in high priority watersheds.
Status: EPA conducted Webcast training on the Integrating Water and Waste Programs
to Restore Watersheds manual on July 11, 2006. Additionally, EPA planned to conduct a
2-day training workshop on the manual at three EPA regional offices using information
from an actual watershed selected by the region hosting the training. The planned
completion date was fall/winter 2006/2007. OSWER reported that a workshop on
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds was held in Region 9 in
February 2008. The attendees included Region 9 Superfund and Water offices,
California water program officials, U.S. Geological Survey representatives, tribal
representatives, and local watershed groups. As a result of the workshop, an interactive
Website is being developed to facilitate communication between water and waste
programs for the watershed. The next workshop is scheduled for March 2009 in
Region 4.
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.
19

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Status: OW planned to work with ORD to determine if a statistical design for collecting
contaminated sediment data is practical and, if practical, develop a statistical design.
OW will also develop electronic transfer protocols with other EPA offices, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and States to collect contaminated sediment
data that can be used for the next NSQS. The planned 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 planned to develop electronic transfer protocols with other EPA offices, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and States to collect contaminated
sediment data that can be used for the next NSQS. OW also planned to develop with
OSWER an approach for incorporating contaminated sediment data that are currently
available only in paper format in the 10 EPA regional office or contractor files.
Additionally, OW planned to hold workshops on the design of the next NSQS. The
planned 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 planned to consult with ORD 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. OW expects that this analysis will
consider the range of deposition and degradation rates in several watersheds. This will
enable OW to determine a reporting frequency based on science. The planned
completion date was December 31, 2006.
2. As part of the workplan being developed in response to Recommendation 2-1,
determine the actual programmatic needs of other EPA programs for the NSQS data and
analysis. This will enable OW to determine a reporting frequency based on the real needs
of programs for this information. The date of this action is the completion of the
workplan that responds to Recommendation 2-1. The planned completion date was
June 30, 2006.
20

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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. As of September 2005, approximately $465 million in special
accounts was potentially available for transfer to the Trust Fund, though not all of these funds
may have been available immediately.
Unimplemented Recommendations
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: EPA reported in MATS that Recommendation 2-3 is partially implemented.
There were two planned corrective actions to address 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. That action is considered
completed. OCFO is in the process of determining if the Agency's new centralized
financial management system, which is being tested this fall, will solve the issue. If not,
OCFO may consider having system adjustments made.
Recommendation 2-5 - Determining Superfund Resource Needs and Allocations: We
recommend to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER that EPA should conduct a workforce
assessment and/or develop a workload model, comprehensively reevaluate regional and
Headquarters Superfund personnel levels and allocations, and develop and communicate a
schedule to regularly evaluate Superfund workload models. Superfund removal needs and
current allocations should be reviewed. Consideration of factors including regional/State
capacity to conduct removals, nature of prior removal actions in regions/States, nature of
regulated businesses/activities in regions/States, and the type or volume of hazardous material
transport that occurs in regions/States may assist need or allocation decisions.
21

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Status: OSWER reported that the Superfund Program conducted a workload assessment
project that will allow the Agency to estimate the workload under alternative program
management scenarios for offices with Superfund resources in the regions and in
Headquarters. The analysis was completed in May 2008. The Regional Directors have
concurred on the draft final report. The final report is being forwarded to the Superfund
Board of Directors for concurrence. Concurrence is expected by November 30, 2008.
The planned, agreed-to milestone date for this recommendation was January 31, 2007.
22

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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
OIG 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 Food Quality Protection Act's impact on EPA
regarding children's health. OIG 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 3-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OPPTS
develop a Standard Evaluation Procedure to assess results of developmental neurotoxicity
testing. Within this Procedure, incorporate a discussion on the developmental neurotoxicity data
call-in results and address which indicator, or combination of indicators, is considered most
sensitive and meaningful for assessing developmental neurotoxicity from exposures during
critical windows of development.
Status: OPP planned to develop a standard evaluation procedure for developmental
neurotoxicity studies. OPP would provide overall instructions and guidance to
toxicology reviewers on whether the study was conducted, documented, and reported
properly, and how to interpret the results for hazard assessment purposes. The planned
completion date was December 2006. OPP reports that the work is ongoing. Additional
time is needed for the review of many studies (73 to date) and to develop statistical
procedures for analyzing study results. Not yet finalized, a standardized statistical
procedure for analyzing developmental neurotoxicity acoustic startle studies has been
developed. OPP is also exploring methods to look at the rate of pup body weight growth.
OPP expects to complete the actions for this recommendation by December 2010.
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
23

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 planned completion date was December 2006.
OPP reports that it is currently 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.
24

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 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 agreed to the recommendation and 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 "an abundance of 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 decision is pending.
25

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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.
26

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 enforcement of 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
1 40 Code of Federal Regulations 70.6 (c)(5)(iii)(B)
27

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
basis of the permittee's reported compliance with the terms and conditions of its Title V
permit that underlies its annual compliance certification.
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.
28

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 toward achieving the Clean Water Act goal of eliminating
toxic discharges that can harm water quality has stalled.
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 the adoption of 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 migration and retention of 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. This
recommendation was planned for completion by September 2007.
Recommendation 4-3: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OW direct
staff to evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to enable it to make further
reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk. The additional funding should be requested in
the next funding cycle.
29

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Status: OW's Office of Wastewater Management is finalizing its Strategic Plan for the
next 3 years. As strategic goals and associated tasks are determined, OW will evaluate
the resources necessary to complete those actions. In addition, the Permitting for
Environmental Results effort has helped OW confirm that the resources allocated to
implementing the entire NPDES program, including the pretreatment program, are
insufficient. This recommendation was planned for completion by September 2007.
30

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Action Office: OSWER
Report Title: EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse:
Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement
Report No.:	2003-P-00012	Date Issued: 08/21/2003
Report Summary
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York
City and the environmental aftermath were unprecedented. Responding to this crisis required
organizations from all levels of government to coordinate their response efforts and to make
critical public health and safety decisions quickly, and without all of the data that decision-
makers would normally desire. Many persons interviewed spoke highly of the response of EPA
and its employees. Still, we, as well as EPA and others, identified lessons learned from the
response that can improve EPA's preparedness for future disasters.
We found that when EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was "safe" to breathe,
it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. In addition, work
practices applicable to the transport of asbestos debris from the site were employed
inconsistently, and the specific impact on air quality of any variance from EPA's asbestos
emergency work practices is unknown. Also, we believe that EPA could have taken a more
proactive approach regarding indoor air clean-up and more measures can be taken to ensure that
indoor clean-up effectively minimizes health risk exposure. Further, there were indications that
the public did not receive sufficient air quality information and wanted more information on
associated health risks. An overriding lesson learned was that, in a disaster, EPA needs to be
prepared to assert its opinion and judgment on matters that impact human health and the
environment since, ultimately, the public, Congress, and others expect EPA to monitor and
resolve environmental issues.
Unimplemented Recommendations
In part due to a lapse in coordination between the Administrator's Office and OSWER,
corrective actions agreed to by the OIG in 2004 in response to the recommendations in this
report were not tracked, and the report was incorrectly closed out in MATS when some
corrective actions were still ongoing or planned. The OIG met with EPA to resolve these issues.
As a result, OSWER submitted a revised corrective action plan in September 2008, which
identifies the corrective actions that have already been taken in response to most of the
recommendations and proposes new, alternative corrective actions for the unimplemented
recommendations. An OIG decision on the revised plan is pending.
31

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
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 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA make
modernizing the Permit Compliance System (PCS) a high priority. Further, ensure that future
systems:
•	Require electronic submission and evaluation of self-monitoring reports for all
dischargers, including minor facilities and storm water.
•	Track storm water permits, inspections, compliance rates, and enforcement actions.
Status: OECA has been granted a time extension to April 1, 2009, to complete the first
part of this recommendation. For the second part of the recommendation, OECA
reported that the new ICIS-NPDES does include the capacity to track items listed above.
On April 30, 2007, EPA issued a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement for review and
comment which includes requisite data elements to be entered into ICIS. The policy was
opposed by States. OECA is pursuing a rule to require the data.
Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA accelerate
the development of the Interim Data Exchange Format for the PCS. 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 PCS. EPA is not investing any additional resources for flowing
data to PCS, but is focusing on an improved process for batch flow into ICIS-NPDES that
will be piloted in spring 2008. The policy was opposed by States. Therefore, OECA is
pursuing a rule to require submission of the data by States.
32

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Recommendation 3-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA continue to
report the PCS 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 PCS as an
Agency level weakness. This 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.
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 is dependent on
OW's progress in developing new whole effluent toxicity permit guidance. OW has
deferred their 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.
33

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
Appendix A
OIG Reports with Unimplemented Recommendations
by Program Office
(as of September 30, 2008)
OAR	
2007-P-00028, ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity of the
Label
2005-P-00010,	Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title VPermits
If Program Goals Are to Be Fully Realized
OARM	
08-P-0093, EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
OCFO	
08-1-0032, Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
2006-P-00027,	EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific Sites
OECA	
2007-P-00026,	EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to
Superfund Cleanups
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-00035, EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy Program Management Controls
2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software
2007-P-00007, EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting
Incidents
34

-------
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008
(Report No. 09-P-0014)
OPEI	
2007-P-00013, Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management to Ensure
Value
2006-P-00001, Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
OPPTS	
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-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments
2006-P-00013,	EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources
2003-P-00012,	EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes,
and Areas for Improvement
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
35

-------