Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

Region III Water Quality

Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting

E1HWF7-03-0160-9100118

March 31, 1999
Inspector General Division Mid-Atlantic Audit Division

Conducting the Audit Philadelphia, PA

Region Covered: Region 3

Program Offices Involved: Office of Water

Region III Water Protection

Division 

Region III Environmental

Services Division
March 31, 1999

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Region III Water Quality Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting

Audit Report Number E1HWF7-03-0160-9100118

FROM: Michael Simmons

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits 

TO: J. Charles Fox

Assistant Administrator for Water (4101)

W. Michael McCabe

Regional Administrator (3RA00)

Attached is our final audit report on Region III Water Quality Standards,

Monitoring, and Reporting. The overall objectives of this audit were to determine:

(1) whether Region III implemented effective procedures to evaluate State water

quality standards, monitoring, and reporting; and, (2) whether the State of

Maryland implemented procedures to develop standards, monitor its waters, 

and report on its water quality. This report contains recommendations to the

Assistant Administrator for Water and to the Regional Administrator of Region III.

This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector

General (OIG) has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This

report represents the opinion of the OIG. Final determination on matters in this

report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established EPA audit

resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings contained in this audit report do

not necessarily represent the final EPA position, and are not binding upon EPA in

any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of Justice. 

ACTION REQUIRED

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, the action officials are required to provide us a 

written response to the audit report within 90 days of the date of this report. The

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Assistant Administrator for Water need only address the recommendation in

Chapter 2. The Region III Administrator is responsible for the remaining

recommendations. These responses should address all recommendations and

include milestone dates for corrective actions. This will assist us in deciding

whether to close this report.

We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. Should

your staff have any questions about this report, please have them contact Michael

Wall or Carl Jannetti at (215) 814-5800, or Ernie Ragland at (202) 260-8984.

Attachment
i

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives The objectives of our audit were to determine:

1. Whether Region III implemented effective procedures to

evaluate State water quality standards, monitoring, and

reporting.

2. Whether the State of Maryland implemented procedures

to:

Ç Develop standards that will protect the State’s

water quality,

Ç Monitor the quality of State waters, and

Ç Ensure reports on water quality are accurate,

complete, and useful to program management.

Results-In-Brief Our audit disclosed several areas needing improvement with

respect to the water quality programs in the States within

Region III.

Bacteria In Water Not Properly Assessed Or Reported

Elevated bacteria levels can be hazardous to people using the

water for recreational activities, such as swimming or water

skiing. Bacteria can cause illnesses including sore throats,

ear infections, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, meningitis, and

encephalitis. The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop

and publish criteria for assessing water quality based on the

latest scientific knowledge. States are then to adopt these

criteria, or criteria that are at least as protective as EPA’s. 

In 1986, EPA published its Ambient Water Quality Criteria

for Bacteria, which recommended Enterococcus and E. coli as

bacteriological indicators of harmful pathogens. However, as

of 1998, Delaware is the only State within Region III to

adopt either of these two criteria. The remaining States use

fecal
ii

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

coliform, a criterion developed in the 1960's to assess their

water quality. Thus, by not assuring that States adhere to

the Clean Water Act by using criteria based on the latest

scientific knowledge, the Agency implicitly allowed States to

use a less protective criterion to assess the bacteriological

quality of their water bodies. As a result, water bodies with

bacterial contamination may remain undetected and

unreported, and the public may be unknowingly exposed to

harmful bacteria.

In addition to not adopting the EPA bacteriological criteria,

the State of Maryland did not implement its own criteria, or

follow EPA guidance when assessing and reporting water

bodies impaired by bacteria.

Deficient Standards Were Not Corrected

Water quality standards in Maryland, Delaware,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of

Columbia, were inadequate in 1998, even though EPA

identified some deficiencies as far back as 1990. 

Consequently, State standards do not protect the waters in

Region III as intended by the Clean Water Act, and the

Agency risks being sued for not promulgating adequate

water quality standards. This occurred because Region III

did not fully use its authority, or fulfill its responsibility, to

ensure that deficient standards were corrected. Specifically,

Region III did not issue written notices to the States, or

elevate these issues to the EPA Administrator, who then

would have had the authority to make promulgation

decisions. 

Missed Opportunities To Correct Standards

The Clean Water Act requires each State to: (a) hold public

hearings at least every three years to review its water

quality standards; and, (b) submit the results of these

reviews to the Administrator of EPA. The purpose of these

“Triennial Reviews” is to determine the need for additional

standards or for the revision to existing standards. Thus, if

hearings are not held and standards not reviewed, the public

and EPA have less assurance as to the adequacy of State

water quality standards. At the time of our audit, West

Virginia was the only State within Region III to have
iii

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

completed its Triennial Review timely. The other States did

not complete their reviews because the Agency has not

enforced its authority under the Clean Water Act. 

Planning Documents Were Not Prepared Or Updated

States in Region III did not prepare or update water quality

planning documents as required by the Clean Water Act and

by Federal regulations. These documents include:

Continuing Planning Process Documents, Water Quality

Management Plans, Monitoring Strategies, Quality

Assurance Management Plans, and Quality Assurance

Project Plans. Regional personnel argued that certain

documents were not actually required to be submitted, or

that other documents were suitable substitutes. The absence

of these documents lessens confidence that States are

effectively managing their programs to clean up water

bodies. Moreover, the absence of Continuing Planning

Process Documents has resulted in lawsuits against EPA in

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

From fiscal year 1995 through 1998, States in Region III

received Federal funds exceeding $35.5 million to fulfill a

wide range of water quality activities required under the

Clean Water Act, including: (a) developing and reviewing

standards; (b) monitoring and assessing the water; and, (c)

preparing the reports and documents required under the Act. 

Recommendations We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water

work to ensure that, if States do not amend their water

quality standards to include the Agency’s 1986 Ambient

Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, appropriate action is

taken to resolve the deficiency. 

We recommend the Region III Administrator:

Ç Take appropriate action if Maryland does not

implement its own bacterial regulations. Such action

could include withholding Section 106 funding,

elevating the issue to the Administrator, or

disapproving the State’s Impaired List.
iv

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Ç Send written notices to each State in the Region clearly

identifying the inadequate standards.

Ç Coordinate with EPA Headquarters to promulgate 

standards if States do not correct the inadequacies

identified in the written notices.

Ç Initiate action to identify what toxic pollutant water

quality criteria are necessary, if the 1999 Maryland

Triennial Review fails to do so.

Ç Request the Administrator of EPA to consider initiating

Clean Water Act 303(c)(4)(B) actions against Delaware,

the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 

Ç Withhold a portion of Section 106 funding from any

State whose Triennial Review is overdue.

Ç Require States receiving grants under Section 106 of the

Clean Water Act to develop and/or update Monitoring

Strategies and Water Quality Management Plans. 

When necessary, withhold funds from States that

neglect to do so.
v

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GLOSSARY

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1

Objectives ................................................... 1

Background ................................................. 1

Scope and Methodology ........................................ 4

Prior Audit Coverage ......................................... 6

CHAPTER 2

BACTERIA IN WATER NOT ASSESSED OR REPORTED ............... 7

Conclusion ................................................. 11

Recommendations ........................................... 12

EPA Office of Water Response to the Draft Report ................. 13

OIG Evaluation of Office of Water Response ...................... 14

Region III Response to the Draft Report ......................... 15

Maryland Response to the Draft Report ......................... 15

OIG Evaluation ............................................. 16

CHAPTER 3

DEFICIENT STANDARDS WERE NOT CORRECTED ................. 19

Deficient Maryland Standards ................................. 20

Deficiencies in Other States Within Region III .................... 22

Region III Position .......................................... 23

Conclusion ................................................. 24

Recommendations ........................................... 24

Region III Response to the Draft Report ......................... 24

Maryland Response to the Draft Report ......................... 25

OIG Evaluation ............................................. 25

CHAPTER 4

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO CORRECT STANDARDS .............. 27

Consequences of Late Reviews ................................. 29

Recommendations ........................................... 30

Region III Response to Draft Report ............................ 31

Maryland Response to the Draft Report ......................... 31

OIG Evaluation ............................................. 31
vi

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

CHAPTER 5

PLANNING DOCUMENTS NOT PREPARED OR UPDATED ........... 33

Continuing Planning Process Documents ........................ 34

Water Quality Management Plans .............................. 34

Monitoring Strategy ......................................... 34

Quality Assurance ........................................... 35

Conclusion ................................................. 36

Recommendations ........................................... 37

Region III Response to Draft Report ............................ 37

Maryland Response to Draft Report ............................. 38

OIG Evaluation ............................................. 39

APPENDIX A

Office of Water Response to Draft Report ........................ 41

Region III Response to Draft Report ............................ 51

Maryland Response to Draft Report ............................. 77

APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTION ................................................ 91
vii

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

GLOSSARY

Anti-degradation

Policy

A policy to ensure water quality is conserved, maintained,

and protected.

CFR Code of Federal Regulations.

CPP Continuing Planning Process document.

Criteria Numeric values or narrative statements that describe the

quality needed to support a water body’s designated use. 

Criteria are to be established in State regulations for

chemicals, metals, bacteria, and other contaminants. 

Designated Use The use for a water body designated by State regulations

that include: protection of aquatic life and recreation ( i.e.,

swimming, boating, or white water rafting) and may include

such uses as drinking water protection.

Discharger A person, company, or wastewater treatment plant that

releases pollution into a water body, usually in accordance

with a permit issued by EPA or a State Agency.

DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

E. coli Eschericia coli; one of the species of bacteria in the fecal

coliform group. Its presence is considered indicative of fresh

fecal contamination, and it is used as an indicator organism

for the presence of pathogens. 

Encephalitis Inflammation of the brain.

Enterococci A group of cocci bacteria that normally inhabit the intestines

of people and animals. They are used as indicators of fecal

contamination. 

Fecal coliform A class of bacteria found in the intestinal tract of warmblooded animals and people. Their presence is an indicator

of possible contamination by pathogens.

Gastroenteritis Inflammation of the lining of the stomach and the intestines.
viii

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Impaired A water body that does not fully support its designated use,

because its criteria have been exceeded.

MDE Maryland Department of the Environment.

Meningitis Inflammation of the three membranes that envelop the brain

and the spinal cord, especially as a result of infection by

bacteria or viruses.

OIG Office of the Inspector General.

Pathogen A bacterium or virus that causes disease.

Promulgate To make known the terms of a new regulation or to put a

new regulation into effect. 

Sanitary Survey An investigation to determine the source of contamination in

a water body.

Standards Water quality standards consist of three elements: a

designated use, water quality criteria, and an antidegradation policy.

States in Region III Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, and West Virginia.

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load - how much pollution may be

added to a water body without impacting its designated use.

Toxic Pollutants The 126 toxic pollutants listed in Section 307(A) of the Clean

Water Act. States are required to adopt specific numeric

criteria for these pollutants that are at least as protective as

EPA criteria recommendations, or provide a scientifically

defensible rationale for less protective criteria. EPA refers to

these as “priority” toxic pollutants.
1

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Standard

s

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Objectives The objectives of our audit were to determine:

1. Whether Region III implemented effective procedures to

evaluate State water quality standards, monitoring, and

reporting.

2. Whether the State of Maryland implemented procedures

to:

Ç Develop standards that will protect the State’s

water quality,

Ç Monitor the quality of State waters, and

Ç Ensure reports on water quality are accurate,

complete, and useful to program management.

Background The Clean Water Act is the primary legislation addressing

water quality programs. The principal goals of the Act are

to:

Ç Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the nation’s waters, 

Ç Achieve water quality that promotes protection and

propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and

provides for recreation in and on the water.

Water quality standards provide the

foundation for accomplishing these goals. 

These standards are laws or regulations

that States adopt to enhance the quality of

their water bodies and to protect the public

health and welfare. Water quality standards consist of three

elements: a designated use, water quality criteria, and an

anti-degradation policy.
2

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

States classify their water bodies according to how the water

can be used. These “designated uses” include the protection

of aquatic life and recreation, i.e., swimming, boating, and

white water rafting and may also include the protection of

drinking water.

Once the designated use of a water body is determined, the

Act requires the State to develop water quality criteria for

that use. Water quality criteria identify the amount of

contamination that may be present in the water without

impacting the designated use.

EPA published Federal criteria that set numerical criteria

for 103 toxic pollutants and approximately 38 other

pollutants. These restrictions are based on the effect the

pollutants have on the water’s use. States must either adopt

the Federal criteria or develop their own scientifically

defensible criteria that are at least as protective. 

The Clean Water Act also requires State water quality

standards to include an anti-degradation policy. Title 40,

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 131.12, requires

States to identify the implementation methods for this policy. 

The purpose of an anti-degradation policy is to conserve,

maintain, and protect existing water quality, including water

bodies of exceptionally high quality such as those found in

National and State Parks.

Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water

Act requires each State, at least

once every three years, to hold

public hearings. The purpose of

these hearings is to review, and, as

appropriate, modify and adopt water quality standards. The

results of these reviews are then to be made available to the

Administrator of EPA.

Section 303(c)(4) of the Act stipulates that the Administrator

of EPA shall promptly prepare and publish proposed

regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality

standard:

Triennial

Review
3

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Funding

Ç If a revised or new water quality standard

submitted by a State . . . is determined to be

inconsistent with the Clean Water Act, or

Ç In any case where the Administrator determines

that a revised or new standard is necessary to meet

the requirements of the Act.

If a State fails to conduct these “Triennial Reviews,” the

Agency is empowered to “to take appropriate action” under

Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.

Title 40 CFR Part 130.4 requires each

State to develop a monitoring program to

assess whether their water bodies meet

water quality standards. Such programs

generate information necessary to guide

management decisions and track

environmental progress. The monitoring programs must

meet EPA’s quality assurance requirements. The programs

must also identify the water bodies to be tested, the

frequency and types of testing, and the entity to conduct the

testing. 

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act

requires each State to assess and report to

EPA every two years on the condition of all

their water bodies. In the Assessment

Report, the State classifies each water

body as either “fully supporting,” “partially supporting,” or

“not supporting” its designated use. EPA then combines all

the State reports into a national report. This report is sent

to Congress, and is used by the Agency to measure its

performance towards achieving clean and safe water.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires each State to

prepare a prioritized Impaired List of water bodies that do

not “fully support” their “designated use.” From this list the

States are required to develop “total maximum daily loads,” 

which are allocations of how much pollution each

“discharger” will be allowed to release into each water body.

EPA awards grant funds to States under

Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. These

grants subsidize a wide range of water

Monitori

ng

Reportin

g
4

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

quality program activities, including: developing and

reviewing standards; monitoring and assessing the water;

and, preparing the reports and documents required under

the Act. 

Federal Funds Awarded Under Section 106

1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Maryland $1,295,030 $1,269,656 $1,269,656 $1,452,123 $5,286,465

Delaware 763,770 788,863 718,275 0

1 $2,270,908

District of

Columbia

661,418 641,580 664,321 483,362 $2,450,681

Pennsylvania 3,346,399 3,245,513 3,299,768 3,651,767 $13,543,447

Virginia 1,943,839 1,863,883 1,863,883 1,993,427 $7,665,032

West Virginia 1,032,619 991,144 991,144 1,293,675 $4,308,582

$35,525,115

1. Beginning in 1998, Delaware’s Section 106 funds were included in its Performance Partnership Grant

and therefore are not specifically identifiable.

Scope and

Methodology

We performed this audit according to the Government

Auditing Standards (1994 Revision) issued by the

Comptroller General of the United States as they apply to

program audits. The audit included tests of the program

records and other auditing procedures we considered

necessary. 

We began our review with a survey on August 13, 1997. As a

result of the survey we began an in-depth review on

February 2, 1998. We completed our audit fieldwork on

September 15, 1998.

For simplicity purposes we refer to the District of Columbia

as a “State,” because under the Clean Water Act, the District

has the same responsibilities and is subject to the same

requirements as a State.
5

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

We concentrated our review on the State of Maryland’s water

quality program. However, as various issues arose, we

determined if programs in other States within Region III had

similar discrepancies. 

Maryland’s water quality program responsibilities are

divided between the Maryland Department of the

Environment (MDE) and the Maryland Department of

Natural Resources (DNR). MDE fulfills most of the

regulatory responsibilities, including reviewing water quality

standards, conducting Triennial Reviews, preparing the

Impaired List of water bodies, and developing the “total

maximum daily loads.” DNR performs the majority of the

water quality monitoring responsibilities and prepares the

Assessment Report sent to EPA.

We reviewed the Clean Water Act, the CFR, the Water

Quality Standards Handbook, Guidance for Section 106 of

the Clean Water Act, Monitoring Strategy Guidance,

Guidelines for Preparation of 1996 State Water Quality

Assessments (Section 305(b) Reports), and Maryland’s Laws

and Regulations applicable to its water quality program.

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documents and

interviewed officials at: MDE, DNR, Region III’s Water

Protection Division and Environmental Services Division,

and EPA’s Office of Water. 

We also reviewed correspondence between EPA and the

States within Region III applicable to water quality

standards, planning documents, and reports required under

Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

We selected a sample of 20 water bodies in Maryland to

evaluate the State process for sampling, assessing, and

reporting the water quality. We judgmentally selected this

sample to obtain a mixture of geographic location, size, and

reported water quality. 

We reviewed internal controls and procedures specifically

related to our objectives. Although we used information from

Region III’s Permit Compliance System, we did not review

the controls associated with the input and processing of

information into this system. We also reviewed the Region’s
6

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

 Water Protection Division’s Annual Reports on Internal

Controls for fiscal years 1994 through 1997, that were

prepared to comply with the Federal Manager’s Financial

Integrity Act. None of the issues cited in this audit were

disclosed in these reports. 

Due to the complexity of some water quality issues, we

obtained technical assistance from the OIG Engineering and

Science Staff. This technical assistance included: (1) a

comparison of Maryland’s water quality criteria to EPA’s

criteria; (2) an analysis of data from Maryland’s monitoring

stations; and, (3) a review of the pollutants identified in the

Permit Compliance System as being contained in Maryland’s

pollution discharge permits.

We issued the draft report on November 25, 1998. Maryland

submitted its response on February 2, 1999. Region III

submitted its response on February 23, and EPA’s Office of

Water submitted its response on March 24, 1999. We 

changed the draft report where necessary, but our overall

positions remained unchanged. We held an exit conference

with Region III on March 16, 1999, with Maryland officials

on March 24, and with EPA’s Office of Water on March 25,

1999. The responses and our evaluation of these responses,

are summarized at the end of Chapters 2 through 5 and

provided in their entirety in Appendix A. 

Prior Audit

Coverage

Neither the OIG nor the U.S. General Accounting Office

issued any reports related to water quality standards,

monitoring, and reporting for any State in Region III. 

However, on January 15, 1997, Virginia’s Joint Legislative

Audit and Review Commission issued a comprehensive

report on water enforcement in the State.

The OIG issued a report on Missouri’s water quality on

March 31, 1998, and is currently auditing the programs of

Arkansas, Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, and

Oregon. The OIG issued a report on March 27, 1997, entitled

Region III Superfund Field Sampling Activities, which

identified non-compliance with the requirement to prepare a

Regional Quality Management Plan. Although this Plan has

since been developed, our audit identified weaknesses in its

implementation. See Chapter 5 for additional details.
7

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

CHAPTER 2

BACTERIA IN WATER NOT ASSESSED OR REPORTED

Elevated bacterial levels can be hazardous to people using

water for recreational activities, such as swimming or water

skiing. Bacteria can cause illnesses including sore throats,

ear infections, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, meningitis, and

encephalitis. The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop

and publish criteria for assessing water quality based on the

latest scientific knowledge. States are then to adopt either

these criteria, or criteria that are at least as protective as

EPA’s. If a State does not adopt such criteria, then the Clean

Water Act requires EPA to write a regulation to supersede

the State’s regulation and ensure that the more protective

criteria are used to assess water quality. 

In 1986, EPA published its Ambient Water Quality Criteria

for Bacteria, which approved Enterococcus and E. coli as

bacteriological indicators of harmful pathogens. However, as

of 1998, Delaware is the only State within Region III to

adopt either of these two approved Federal criteria. The

remaining States use fecal coliform to assess their water

quality. This occurred because the Agency implicitly allowed

States to use the less protective criterion to assess the

bacteriological quality of their water bodies. As a result,

water bodies with harmful contamination may remain

undetected and unreported, and the public may be

unknowingly exposed to harmful bacteria. 

In addition to not adopting the Federal criteria, the State of

Maryland did not implement its own criterion, or follow EPA

guidance when assessing and reporting water bodies

impaired by bacteria. 

The following chart shows the water quality criterion being

used by each State within Region III, and whether the

criterion was as protective as EPA’s.
1. The TMDLs restrict the amounts of pollution that each discharger can release

into a water body, and still allow it to be safe. 8

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

STATE CRITERIA

USED BY STATE

AS

PROTECTIVE

Delaware Enterococcus Yes

District of Columbia Fecal Coliform No

Maryland Fecal Coliform & 

Sanitary Surveys No

Pennsylvania Fecal Coliform No

Virginia Fecal Coliform No

West Virginia

Fecal Coliform &

Best Professional

Judgement

No

Whether coincidental or not, it is interesting to note that

Delaware, which did adopt a Federal criterion, reported 84

percent of its assessed water bodies as impaired by bacteria,

whereas Maryland, which uses fecal coliform, reported less

than 1 percent of its assessed water bodies as impaired. 

DELAWARE MARYLAND

Assessed Miles 651 17,000

Impaired Miles 548 5

Percent Impaired 84% .03%

MARYLAND

The Clean Water Act requires each state to assess and report

on the condition of its water bodies every two years. To

fulfill this requirement each state submits to EPA an

Assessment Report and an Impaired List. The Assessment

Report describes the quality of all water bodies, including

whether or not they are safe. This report is also made

available to the public. The Impaired List prioritizes for EPA

those water bodies classified as unsafe. The Impaired List

is especially important because it identifies the bodies of

water for which “total maximum daily loads” (TMDLs) must

be developed in order to clean up the contamination.1
9

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Maryland’s

Water Quality

Standard

Accordingly, the Clean Water Act gives EPA the final

approval authority over each State’s Impaired List. 

In Maryland, two state agencies use different interpretations

of the State’s criteria to determine if water bodies are

impaired. However, neither interpretation implements the

State’s criteria as written, resulting in insufficient data to

document impairments. Moreover, there was a difference of

opinion between the State and Region III as to what

constituted an impaired water body. As a result, Maryland’s

Impaired List did not include 185 water bodies that had

elevated bacterial levels. Furthermore, 62 of these 185 water

bodies were not identified as impaired on Maryland’s

Assessment Report.

According to Maryland’s water

quality standard, a body of water

will be presumed contaminated: 

(a) If the fecal coliform density exceeds a log mean of

200 per 100 milliliters, based on a minimum of at

least five samples taken over any 30-day period;

(b) If 10 percent of the total number of samples

taken during any 30-day period exceed 400 per

100 milliliters; or, 

(c) Except when a sanitary survey approved by

the Department of the Environment discloses

no significant health hazard, (a) and (b) does

not apply.

Maryland’s Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) only

considers a water body as

impaired if: (1) it is a

“permitted” beach closed by a

local health department (in its

1996 Assessment Report DNR reported 25 such beaches as

impaired); or, (2) a sanitary

DNR Inadequately

Sampled
2. A sanitary survey is an investigation to determine how fecal coliform bacteria

entered a water body.

10

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

survey2 confirms the impairment. But DNR reported no

water bodies as impaired due to elevated bacterial levels,

despite the fact that, according to other monitoring data

submitted by Maryland to Region III, there were an

additional 62 water bodies impaired due to elevated bacterial

levels. 

During the audit, DNR personnel explained that they did not

perform sanitary surveys for elevated monthly bacterial data

because: (1) fecal coliform are not harmful bacteria, but

rather only an indicator of harmful bacteria; and, (2) any

bacterial contamination probably came from animal waste

which DNR assumed is harmless, rather than human waste

which is known to be harmful. We disagree with both of

DNR’s explanations. 

First, although fecal coliform may not be harmful to humans,

they are called an indicator because they are typically found

in the presence of harmful bacteria and viruses. 

Furthermore, Maryland’s own regulations establish fecal

coliform as the criterion to be used to measure water quality. 

Second, we dispute the assumption that any bacterial

contamination must automatically come from an animal

rather than a human source. The only fact known at this

point is that bacterial contamination exists, not where it

originated. 

In any event, Maryland did not conduct sanitary surveys

(except for permitted beaches and for the shellfish sanitation

program). According to DNR, such surveys are expensive. 

However, each year between 1995 through 1997, Maryland

performed 5000 sanitary surveys to ensure that people did

not get sick from eating shellfish. Accordingly, we believe

there is justification for the extra expense of an additional 62

sanitary surveys, at the locations where elevated bacterial

levels were detected.

Maryland’s Department of the

Environment (MDE) considers a

water body as impaired by

bacteria only if five samples

taken over the course of a month

MDE

Inadequately

Sampled
3. Other data includes MDE fecal coliform data from STOrage and RETrieval System

(STORET), 1995 Maryland Biological Stream Survey data, the 1996 Assessment Report (305b

report), and the “Water Body System” database.

4. We concur that 8 of the 193 water bodies should not have been listed.

11

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

indicate elevated bacterial levels (i.e., paragraph (a) of

Maryland’s water quality standards). Using this

measurement, MDE reported 51 water bodies as impaired by

bacteria on its 1998 Impaired List, despite the fact that,

according to other monitoring data3 submitted by Maryland

to Region III, there were 185 additional water bodies

impaired due to elevated bacterial levels. This discrepancy

occurred because Maryland does not routinely follow its own

standard, i.e., to take five samples from a water body over

the course of a month. Rather, it usually takes nine to

twelve samples per year, usually one each month. 

Region III was aware that MDE had not included 

contaminated water bodies on its Impaired List. On April

17, 1998, the Region notified MDE of 193 water bodies which

should be added to the list because of bacterial

contamination. However, when MDE asserted that there

was insufficient data for the vast majority of the water bodies

to be added to the list, the Region consented with MDE’s

promise to do additional testing. We disagree with this

decision. We believe the Region should have insisted that

185 of the 193 water bodies be listed as impaired for

bacteria4 until MDE performed the additional testing as

promised. In light of the fact that Maryland does not

routinely follow its own standard, we do not agree that

insufficient data should have been accepted as a valid

excuse.

Conclusion Elevated bacterial levels can be hazardous to people using

the water for recreational activities. It can cause various

illnesses ranging from sore throats to meningitis or

encephalitis. The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop

criteria for assessing water quality and requires the States to

adopt these criteria, or criteria that are at least as effective. 

Twelve years has elapsed since EPA revised its bacterial

criteria, but only one state within Region III, Delaware, has

adopted the approved criteria, which is based on the latest

scientific knowledge. The District of Columbia, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia did not. Finally,

in lieu of adopting the Federal bacterial criteria, the State of
12

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Maryland professed to follow its own. But, it did not do so. 

Consequently, Maryland’s reports to EPA understated the

number of water bodies with elevated bacterial levels, a

condition that will delay the development of remedies to

curtail contamination. 

Recommendations We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water

work to ensure that:

2.1 If States do not amend their water quality standards to

include the Agency’s 1986 Ambient Water Quality

Criteria for Bacteria, appropriate action is taken to

resolve the deficiency. 

We recommend the Region III Administrator:

2.2 Ensure that Maryland completes its 1999 Triennial

Review and resolves all standards issues, including

bacteria.

2.3 Ensure that Maryland implements its bacterial

standards as written. Specifically,

(a) DNR should either not require a sanitary

survey to confirm contamination, or

perform the surveys whenever testing

reveals elevated bacterial levels. 

(b) MDE should follow Maryland standards

as written and assure that five samples

be collected in a thirty-day period for

making decisions to add water bodies to

the Impaired List. 

2.4 Take appropriate action if Maryland does not

implement its own regulations. Such actions could

include withholding Section 106 funding, elevating the

issue to the Administrator, or not approving the State’s

Impaired List.
13

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

EPA Office of Water Response to the Draft Report

Background

The fecal coliform bacteria enumeration test was developed in the 1960s as a

replacement for the total coliform test in sewage and in sewage-polluted ambient

water. It was shown to be more specific to warm-blooded animal fecal waste than

total coliform. As a result, the presence of fecal coliform bacteria was the indicator

selected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its predecessor Agency

and published as part of the 1968 Water Quality Criteria and the 1976 Quality

Criteria for Water. Fecal coliform is also designated a conventional pollutant in

Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act. Following the enactment of the 1967 and

1972 Federal water pollution control acts and their requirements for water quality

standards adoption by the States, the use of the fecal coliform test by the States

was almost universal.

EPA’s seminal studies of enteric disease in recreational swimmers in the 1970s

were the first such studies to use epidemiological techniques to statistically

demonstrate which bacterial indicators provide correlation with gastroenteritis

incidence. These studies used new laboratory methods to measure Escherichia coli,

the coliform bacteria always present in warm blooded animal feces, and enterococci,

a small subgroup of 4 species which, while within the much larger fecal streptococci

group, are virtually always found in warm blooded animal feces. Statistically

significant correlations were determined and criteria developed that were based on

swimmer illness rates as a function of indicator bacterial densities in ambient

waters -- that is, on a risk basis. Moreover, it was found that fecal coliform, while a

valid indicator of the presence of fecal material, did not correlate with swimmer

illness rates. The 1986 criteria document used this research to present criteria that

were roughly equivalent in stringency to the previously recommended fecal coliform

criteria.

EPA encouraged the States to change to the new indicators to take advantage

of their improved ability to base decisions on swimmer illness risks. For example,

beginning with the Federal Register Notice announcing the availability of the

criteria document that encouraged quick State adoption (51 FR 8012, March 7,

1986), to a more recent letter (January 13, 1997) from the Assistant Administrator

for Water urging States to adopt the new indicators (copy attached). While a

number of States have done so, more than two-thirds have not. The States that

have not adopted the new criteria have cited a number of perceived problems. 

Among these are the following: the drinking water program still uses total coliform

and fecal coliform (E. coli is now an option, however), making additional demands

on laboratories; the enumeration methods for E. coli and enterococci are not in the

Agency’s methods at 40 CFR Part 136 and thus may pose problems if used in
14

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

NPDES permits; and they have long records using fecal coliform and do not wish to

change indicators.

EPA’s Current Plans

OW agrees with the concerns expressed in the OIG’s draft report. EPA

recognizes that it is important for States to adopt microbiological water quality

criteria that adequately protect designated uses. For these reasons, the President

included specific provisions concerning beach protection in the Clean Water Action

Plan that he issued in February 1998. In response to the Action Plan, EPA recently

completed an Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters that includes a

renewed commitment to encouraging State adoption of updated criteria to protect

beaches. OW will provide OIG with a copy of this Action Plan as soon as copies

have been printed. In the Action Plan, EPA commits to several steps in the near

future regarding water quality criteria. These steps include conducting a literature

review and analysis to verify the continuing scientific soundness of the 1986

criteria; notifying the States of EPA’s intention to make a finding that use of fecal

coliform criteria alone will not support the primary contact designated use

(presuming that position is justified by the review), and initiate a Federal

promulgation to impose the 1986 E. coli and/or enterococci criteria in addition to or

in place of outdated fecal coliform criteria where necessary. EPA is also committed

to promulgating the enumeration methods for E. coli and enterococci into 40 CFR

Part 136 prior to any Federal promulgation for a State.

Office of Water Summary

OW believes that EPA’s planned actions described above will achieve the OIG’s

recommendations on a reasonable time schedule. At the completion of the Clean

Water Action Plan’s and the Beach Action Plan’s measures for beach protection, all

of the States will have the recommended bacterial indicators in place. At that point

all of the States will be capable of using E. coli or enterococci for purposes of section

305(b) reporting, and the draft OIG report’s concern about State reporting of

bacterial impairments will be moot.

OIG Evaluation of Office of Water Response

As explained in the Office of Water response, the fecal coliform bacteria

enumeration test was developed in the 1960's. EPA studies of enteric disease in

swimmers in the 1970's using E. coli and Enterococci found that fecal coliform did

not correlate with swimmer illness rates. Consequently, in 1986 the Agency

encouraged the States to adopt these new indicators to take advantage of their

improved ability. In response to a Clean Water Action Plan issued by the President

in 1998, EPA completed an Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters, and 
15

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

plans to initiate a Federal promulgation to impose the 1986 E. coli and/or

Enterococci criteria where necessary. 

During the exit conference, the Office of Water provided an excerpt from the Action

Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters, in which it was stated that:

Where a State does not amend its water quality standards to

include the 1986 criteria, EPA will act under Section 303(c) of

the Clean Water Act to promulgate the criteria with the goal of

assuring that the 1986 criteria apply in all States not later than

2003.

The issuance of this plan should achieve the intent of our recommendation. Thus,

no further action is necessary.

Region III Response to the Draft Report

The Region concurred that there were inconsistencies in the bacteria criteria

adopted by Region III States, and that EPA has not taken formal action to

disapprove States’ standards when Enterococcus and E. coli were not adopted to

replace fecal coliform criteria. 

The Region believes that State Triennial Reviews, rather than Impaired Lists, are

the appropriate vehicle for disputing the appropriateness of specific State water

quality standards. Moreover, the Region asserted that it is appropriate for a State

to base its Impaired List on its interpretation of its own standards, i.e., Maryland’s

explanation that because fecal bacteria measurements are known to be highly

variable, no less than five samples per month be taken. 

The Region agreed that follow-up is necessary to assist Maryland in providing

resources for additional testing. 

The Region did not address our recommendation that it issue a deficiency notice to

Maryland based on how the State implements its standards regarding DNR

performing sanitary surveys. That is why we reiterated this recommendation in the

final report. Also, we added a similar recommendation regarding MDE collecting a

sufficient number of samples to add water bodies to the Impaired List.

Maryland Response to the Draft Report

Maryland agreed that the bacteriological criterion needs to be revised and that

monitoring for bacteria needs to be modified to better implement the standard. 

Maryland disagreed that its standards are less protective than those recommended
16

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

 by EPA, and that additional waters should be added to the Impaired List. The

response contained a table showing the specific water bodies that were not listed

because “there is insufficient data to determine a violation of water quality.” (See

Appendix A). “However, through the current Triennial Review, Maryland will

explore the feasibility of adopting a fecal coliform standard using the Enterococcus

and E. coli indicators in primary contact waters.”

Regarding implementing its own standards, Maryland agrees that it does not do

statewide sanitary surveys. However, local health Departments do conduct the

surveys, both for enforcement of bathing beach standards and to survey needs with

respect to septic systems. 

Based on comments received from EPA in its review of the 1998 Impaired List,

Maryland has agreed that a review of the bacterial regulations and bacterial

sampling protocols is warranted and will be pursued in the ongoing Triennial

Review process.

OIG Evaluation

Our finding acknowledged that 25 “permitted” beaches and five miles of other water

bodies were listed as impaired on the Assessment Report. However, these 25

beaches represent only a small portion of the State’s water bodies. Our concern is

about the other 62 water bodies, which monitoring data submitted by the State

indicated were also impaired. These water bodies were not included on the

Assessment Report because there was insufficient data to confirm impairment. As

explained in our finding, this lack of information arose because the State did not

implement its own standards, i.e., DNR did not take the required number of

samples and MDE used this lack of data as a reason to not report impairments. 

That is why we are recommending that the Region take other actions in the future

such as withholding Section 106 funding, elevating the issue to the Administrator,

or not approving the State’s Impaired List if Maryland continues to not implement

its own bacterial standards.

In our draft report recommendations, the OIG gave the Region the option to either

rescind the approval of the 1998 Impaired List, or to assure that the additional

monitoring promised by Maryland is promptly carried out. We do not agree with

the Region that the Impaired List is not a proper vehicle to dispute the

appropriateness of specific state water quality standards. Inadequate standards

(and in this case improperly implemented standards) undermine the CWA’s goal of

obtaining water quality which provides for the protection of recreation in and on

the water. We also do not agree that insufficient data is an appropriate

justification to exclude water bodies from listing the waters as impaired, especially

when other monitoring data shows impairment. 
17

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

We agree the Triennial Review process provides EPA with the authority to rectify

inadequate state water quality regulations. However, it should be pointed out that

Maryland has not completed any Triennial Reviews since 1990, with no

consequences from EPA. We understand from the responses that Maryland agrees

it needs to address the issue of insufficient data to list water bodies as impaired,

and that the Region agrees that it has to follow up on this issue. We also

understand that Maryland has just begun a 1999 Triennial Review. To ensure that

Maryland has sufficient data to list water bodies, we believe the Region should help

the State address this issue and follow its standards as written. 
18

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
19

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

CHAPTER 3

DEFICIENT STANDARDS WERE NOT CORRECTED

Water quality standards in Maryland, Delaware,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of

Columbia were inadequate in 1998, even though some

deficiencies were identified as far back as 1990. 

Consequently, State standards do not protect the waters in

Region III as intended by the Clean Water Act, and the

Agency risks being sued for not promulgating adequate

water quality standards.

This occurred because Region III did not fully use its

authority, or fulfill its responsibility, to ensure that deficient

standards were corrected. Specifically, Region III did not

notify States of their deficiencies, or elevate these issues to

the EPA Administrator, who then would have had the

authority to promulgate adequate standards. Despite the

longstanding deficiencies, we noted only one instance where

the Region issued a formal deficiency notice. Also, there was

only one instance where the Region elevated a standard to

the EPA Administrator for promulgation, and this occurred

only because of a court order resulting from a lawsuit filed

against the Agency by an environmental group. 

 Water quality standards consist of three elements:

(1) A “designated use” - protection of aquatic life

and recreation, and may include drinking

water.

(2) The “water quality criteria” necessary to

protect the designated use.

(3) An “anti-degradation policy” to ensure

that water quality is conserved,

maintained, and protected.
20

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Missing

Criteria

for Toxic

Pollutant

s

Chapter 6 of EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook

outlines the process for promulgating new standards. The

Handbook stipulates that although only the EPA

Administrator may actually promulgate the standards, the

Regional Offices also have a major role, i.e., to notify the

States of deficiencies, or if necessary elevate the issue to the

EPA Administrator.

Deficient

Maryland

Standards

Three deficiencies in Maryland’s water quality standards

remained uncorrected since 1990 (the date of the last

completed Maryland Triennial Review). These deficiencies

relate to: the criteria for toxic pollutants; and, antidegradation policy and procedures.

The first deficiency regards the lack of

adequate numeric water quality criteria

for toxic pollutants. A numeric criterion

is the level of contamination which may

be present in the water body without

impacting its designated use. Section

303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act

requires the States to adopt criteria for

all toxic pollutants pursuant Section 307(a)(1) for which EPA

has published criteria under Section 304(a), the discharge or

presence of which in the affected waters could reasonably be

expected to interfere with those designated uses adopted by

the State. Agency guidance proposed three options to meet

this requirement. Maryland selected the option which only

required it to adopt numeric criteria for the toxic pollutants

listed in Section 307(a). According to EPA’s database of

permits issued by Maryland to its dischargers, there are 62

such toxic pollutants. However, although Maryland requires

its dischargers to test for these pollutants, its standards

provide numeric criteria for only 20 of these 62 pollutants.

According to Maryland Department of the Environment

personnel, the State chose not to adopt the EPA criteria for

the remaining 42 pollutants because it: (a) questioned the

science EPA used to develop the criteria; and, (b) feared

being sued by dischargers if the science proved to be invalid. 

These misgivings notwithstanding, the fact remains that the

Clean Water Act mandates that each State either adopt

criteria as
21

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Incorrect

Criteria

for Toxic

Pollutant

Antidegradation

Policy

protective as EPA’s, or develop its own scientifically

defensible criteria. 

The second deficiency is that Maryland’s

numeric criteria for 15 metal pollutants

are set at incorrect levels. Specifically,

the State set criteria at numeric levels

that EPA recommends for “total

recoverable” units, but then adopted

these numeric levels as “dissolved” units. 

The net effect is that the numeric levels

set by Maryland may be less stringent than the levels

currently recommended by EPA. Consequently, the State’s

standards may allow more pollution from metals to be

present in the water than EPA has determined is

appropriate to ensure aquatic life is adequately protected.

The third deficiency in Maryland’s

standards relates to its antidegradation policy. In accordance with

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 131.12, each State

is required to develop such a policy and

identify methods to implement it in

order to ensure that water quality improvements are

conserved, maintained, and protected. In particular, a

State’s anti-degradation policy and implementing procedures

must maintain and protect high quality waters which

constitute an Outstanding National Resource, such as waters

of National and State parks and wildlife refuges. In 1990,

Region III conditionally approved Maryland’s standards

related to its anti-degradation policy, with the understanding

that the State would revise its policy to include provisions for

Outstanding National Resource waters and develop the

required implementation procedures by January 1, 1991. 

However, as of 1998, Maryland has fulfilled neither of these

conditions.

Maryland Summary

Over an eight-year period, the Region has periodically

reminded Maryland personnel about deficiencies in their

water quality standards requiring attention. During our

field visit, Maryland personnel referred to the Region’s

current
22

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Delaware

District

of

Pennsylvan

ia

letter as “EPA’s wish list,” because it neglected to prioritize

or otherwise highlight which deficiencies should be remedied

first. Region III personnel explained that the reminder

letters were somewhat “nebulous”; they referred to “goals”

that EPA “preferred” to see added to the standards, rather

than to deficiencies that required correction. Consequently,

we believe that the Region should send clearly written

deficiency notices, separate from any letters requesting the

fulfillment of optional goals.

Deficiencies in

Other States

Within Region III

In 1993, EPA identified a number of

deficiencies within Delaware’s water

quality standards program. After five

years of discussion between the State and

the Region, many of the deficiencies still

remain uncorrected. In April 1998, the Region notified the

State that it intended to recommend that the EPA

Administrator promulgate replacement standards if the

State did not make recommended corrections. According to

regional personnel, Delaware agreed to hold public hearings

in October 1998 regarding its deficient regulations. 

However, as of March 1999, it has yet to schedule the

hearings, and EPA has taken steps to promulgate some of

the deficient standards. 

Since 1994 the District of Columbia’s

water quality standards contained many

deficiencies. In 1998, the Region reviewed

the District’s draft revisions to their

standards and concluded that several, but

not all, of the items had been corrected. 

However, the Region allowed four years to elapse, and the

District’s standards have yet to be finalized.

In 1994 Region III determined that

Pennsylvania’s standards were

inadequate for two reasons. After two

years and a lawsuit filed by an

environmental group, EPA finally

corrected one of these deficiencies by

promulgating the required standard. However, the

remaining deficiency has yet to be corrected. 
23

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Virginia

West

Virginia

Since February 1990, Virginia’s water

quality standards have included criteria

for bacteria that are less protective than

EPA’s published level. This is significant

because an incorrect standard may allow

elevated bacterial levels (a human health threat) to go

unreported and uncorrected. 

In 1993 the Region identified many

deficiencies with West Virginia’s

standards. In 1995, the State submitted

its Triennial Review package which

enabled the Region to approve some of the

revised standards. On July 14, 1998, West Virginia

submitted a new Triennial Review package. As of February

1999, the Region has completed its review of this package

and is awaiting EPA Headquarters review and concurrence. 

Region III

Position

Regional personnel offered various explanations why

deficiencies in standards remained uncorrected including:

Ç The belief that it was better to afford States the

opportunity to correct their own standards.

Ç The reluctance to encourage changes in a political

environment that may have resulted in the

elimination of some State standards that were

more aggressive than EPA’s. 

Ç A hesitancy to take action against States within

Region III when similar deficiencies were being

overlooked in other EPA Regions.

Ç The opinion that in some instances, e.g., antidegradation implementation procedures, EPA

Headquarters would not know what to promulgate.

Ç The Regions and EPA Headquarters lack personnel

and funding necessary to promulgate regulations

when a State fails to do so.
24

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Conclusion Deficient State water standards within Region III remained

uncorrected for as long as eight years. In our opinion, the

primary reason for this situation was because the Region did

not fully use its authority or fulfill its responsibility to

ensure that deficient standards were corrected. 

Notwithstanding the explanations provided by regional

personnel, we do not believe they justify leaving standards

uncorrected for years. Accordingly, the Region needs to take

appropriate actions to obtain compliance by the States to

better protect bodies of water as intended in the Clean Water

Act. Such actions would include preparing clearly written

notices to the States and elevating issues to the EPA

Administrator if a State fails to correct inadequate

standards.

Recommendations We recommend the Region III Administrator:

3.1 Send clearly written notices to States identifying

inadequate standards.

3.2 Coordinate with EPA Headquarters to promulgate 

standards if States do not correct the inadequacies

identified in the written notices.

3.3 Initiate action to identify what toxic pollutant water

quality criteria are necessary, if the 1999 Maryland

Triennial Review fails to do so.

Region III Response to the Draft Report

EPA Region III agrees that the Region III States have not been timely in

completing Triennial Reviews and, as a result, deficiencies now exist in standards

that were previously approved. Also, EPA agrees that there are State standards

which were disapproved for which EPA Region III has not pursued Federal

promulgation by the Administrator. EPA Region III is aggressively pushing the

States to move to correct outstanding disapprovals and to initiate Triennial

Reviews. Triennial Reviews have been completed in Virginia and West Virginia,

with the approval/disapproval determinations pending.

The draft report noted that EPA Region III did not elevate these issues to the EPA

Administrator, who would then have the authority to pursue Federal promulgation, 
25

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

although not the obligation. EPA Region III agrees with the importance of

notifying the States when changes are needed and also to selective use of Federal

promulgation where other efforts have failed.

Maryland Response to the Draft Report

In its response, Maryland offered several arguments disputing that it needed

additional criteria for toxic pollutants. These arguments included, just because a

permit requires monitoring for a pollutant, it does not mean the pollutant is always

present. Also, the presence of a toxic pollutant in a facility’s discharge does not

automatically require adoption of a criterion. Instead, professional judgement must

be applied to make that determination and be confirmed by monitoring. Moreover,

a pollutant may be included in a permit as a “technology-based limit” required by

Federal guidelines. 

Maryland also disputed that it should have corrected the criteria for metal

pollutants because EPA published its “interim final rule” in 1995 and its “most

recent final guidance on metal conversion factors” in 1998. Given these facts

Maryland asserted that we were premature in concluding that its metals criteria is

deficient.

OIG Evaluation

On June 25, 1992, the Region notified Maryland that its 1993 Triennial Review

needed to review additional or revised water quality criteria for toxic pollutants. In

a follow-up meeting on October 21, 1992, the Region again noted that the State

needed additional or revised numeric criteria for toxic pollutants. This same issue

resurfaced as recently as March 2, 1998, when Region III requested the State to

complete its long overdue Triennial Review. 

We reviewed Maryland’s arguments for not adopting EPA’s criteria, or developing

its own criteria for the 42 pollutants discharged into Maryland waters. We agree

the State made several valid points regarding why pollutants are listed in permits. 

However, Maryland fails to categorically confirm that these toxic pollutants are not

affecting water quality, or are not present at a level to warrant concern. This is the

reason why we added a recommendation for the Regional Administrator to ensure

that this issue is resolved during the 1999 Triennial Review. 

Regarding Maryland’s metal criteria being deficient, our position remains

unchanged. Admittedly EPA took some time to formally publish its final guidance

on metals. However, our conclusion that the State’s metal criteria is deficient is

hardly premature, in light of the fact that Region III had arrived at the same

conclusion in 1990, nine years earlier.
26

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Because Maryland agreed it would address the designation of Outstanding

National Resource Waters during its 1999 Triennial Review, no further action is

needed for that issue.

During our exit conference, Maryland MDE officials asserted that the State is

addressing the toxicity issue with Whole Effluent Toxicity testing of permitted

effluents, and an ambient toxicity program, funded by EPA’s Chesapeake Bay

Program, which monitors the tidal portion of the Bay and its tributaries. This

notwithstanding, we still believe that the ambient toxicity testing program must be

expanded to include non-tidal waters and to provide more frequent sampling.
27

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

CHAPTER 4

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO CORRECT STANDARDS

In addition to adopting water quality standards into law, the

Clean Water Act requires each State to: (a) hold public

hearings at least every three years to review the standards;

and, (b) submit the results of these reviews to the

Administrator of EPA. The purpose of these “Triennial

Reviews” is to determine the need for additional standards or

for the revision of existing standards. Thus if hearings are

not held and standards not reviewed, the public and EPA

have less assurance as to the adequacy of State water quality

standards. At the time of our audit, West Virginia was the

only State within Region III to have completed its Triennial

Reviews. The other States did not complete their reviews

because the Agency has not enforced its authority under the

Clean Water Act. 

The following table shows when each State conducted its last

review, when its next review was due, and how many years

the review is overdue as of 1998.

TRIENNIAL REVIEWS 

STATE LAST

REVIEW

REVIEW 

DUE

YEARS 

LATE

Maryland April 1990 April 1993 5 

Delaware February 1990 February 1993 5 

District of Columbia March 1994 March 1997 1 

Pennsylvania March 1994 March 1997 1 

Virginia May 1992 May 1995 3 

West Virginia August 1995 August 1998 0

We were given various reasons why States neglected to hold

the public hearings and review their water quality

standards.
28

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Marylan

Region III personnel informed us that Triennial Reviews are

perceived as a low priority, EPA has a policy to work as

“partners” with the States, and as long as a State makes

“good progress,” the Region will not elevate the issue to EPA

headquarters.

In order to fulfill its requirements, the

State needed to: (a) notify the public of the

review and solicit suggestions for revisions;

(b) review its standards for specific Clean

Water Act requirements; (c) hold public

hearings on the proposed revisions; and, (d) submit the

revisions to EPA for approval. Region III concluded that

Maryland had missed both its 1993 and its 1996 Triennial

Reviews. However, Maryland asserted it fulfilled the 1993

requirement because: (a) all State regulations, including

water quality standards, are continuously open for public

comment; (b) the State is required to review and evaluate all

regulations every eight years; and, (c) Maryland submitted

revised standards to Region III as a result of lawsuit

negotiations with six industries. 

We concur with the Region that Maryland did not fulfill its

Triennial Review requirements. The continuous public

comment period does not meet the Clean Water Act 

requirement for public hearings on all State’s water quality

standards. In addition, the eight-year regulatory review

clearly does not meet the three-year requirement of the Act. 

Finally, the revisions submitted by Maryland to EPA only

addressed the standards revised as a consequence of the

lawsuit. The Clean Water Act requires that all water quality

standards be reviewed.

Over a five-year period (1994 through 1998), Maryland

repeatedly agreed to conduct the 1996 Triennial Review, as

part of activities funded by the grant EPA awarded to the

State under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. 

Nonetheless, even though the State received more than $5

million during this period, it never initiated the review. In a

letter dated March 30, 1998, Maryland included yet another

“tentative schedule” to complete the review by August of

1999 -- the due date for the next Triennial Review.
29

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

 Delaware 

District of

Columbia

Virginia

During our field visit, we were informed by Maryland

Department of Environment personnel that the State was

reluctant to conduct reviews in fear of being sued either by

industry if water quality standards were increased, or by

environmental groups if the standards were made less

protective. 

Similar to Maryland, Delaware also

submitted certain revised standards to

the Region in 1993, but again only as

a result of a lawsuit. Hence, these

revised standards do not satisfy the

Clean Water Act requirement because public hearings were

limited to the specific standards litigated.

The District completed a Triennial

Review in March 1994 after not

having submitted revised standards

since the mid-1980s. Although the

next review was due in March of 1997,

the Region does not expect to receive

the final revisions until fall 1999.

The Commonwealth should have

submitted a Triennial Review in March

1997. According to regional personnel,

Pennsylvania has been directing its

resources to modifying its regulations. 

Upon completion, the Commonwealth intends the modified

regulations to constitute fulfillment of the Triennial Review

requirement.

Virginia completed its last Triennial

Review in May 1992. Revisions to its

water quality standards were made in

1995, but not submitted to EPA until

August 1998. According to Region III

personnel, the revised regulations have been submitted to 

EPA Headquarters for review and concurrence.

Consequences of

Late Reviews

The purpose of adopting water quality standards into law is

to protect water bodies. The purpose of holding public

hearings to review these standards at least every three years

Pennsylvani

a
30

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

is to determine which standards may need revision. Such

revisions may be warranted for reasons including: new

scientific and technical data; environmental changes; 

changes in laws and regulations; or, improvements to the

quality of a water body that require more stringent

standards to maintain the improvements. For example, as

discussed in Chapter 3, since 1990, Maryland’s standards

have included an inadequate anti-degradation policy. 

Moreover, its incorrect criteria for metal pollutants may have

enabled industry to discharge more pollution into Maryland

waters than allowed under the Clean Water Act.

Holding public hearings and reviewing water quality

standards at least every three years is not a voluntary

process; it is mandated under the law, and individual States

as well as EPA have been sued in the past regarding lapses

of adherence to the Clean Water Act. 

Section 106(e) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that EPA

should not award grants if a State fails to carry out its

program. Between 1995 and 1998, the Agency awarded more

than $35 million in grants funds to the States in Region III

to manage their water quality programs. Section 303(c)(1)

requires States to hold public hearings at least every three

years to review standards. Section 303(c)(4) enables EPA to

take action should a State neglect to do so. Section

303(c)(4)(B) specifies that the Administrator shall promptly

prepare and publish proposed regulations . . .

In any case where the Administrator

determines that a revised or new

standards is necessary to meet the

requirements of this Act.

Recommendations We recommend the Region III Administrator:

4.1 Request the Administrator of EPA to consider initiating 

Clean Water Act 303(c)(4)(B) actions against Delaware,

the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
31

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

4.2 Withhold a portion of Section 106 funding from any

State whose Triennial Review is overdue.

Region III Response to Draft Report

The draft report recommends that the Administrator be requested to initiate

Triennial Reviews in Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania

and Virginia. Region III believes it is more appropriate to initiate a 303(c)(4)(B)

action which allows other options such as recommending that the Administrator

make a finding of deficiency and promulgate appropriate standards. 

The draft report recommended withholding Section 106 funding from any state

whose Triennial Review is overdue. The Region is considering this and has done so

in the past.

Maryland Response to the Draft Report

Due to the litigation that developed challenging the legality of the regulations

adopted during the last Triennial Review and the subsequent revisions to water

quality regulations, the schedule was disrupted with EPA's full knowledge. The

State anticipates that future Triennial Reviews will be held in a timely manner. 

Maryland has initiated its current Triennial Review in response to a request from

Region III. Hearings for the public involvement component began in mid-January,

and a review in response to Region III's specific concerns is well underway.

OIG Evaluation

We concurred with the Regional Administrator’s suggestion and adjusted our

recommendation accordingly. We deleted the State of Maryland from the

recommendation because it started a Triennial Review.

As the Region is still considering withholding Section 106 funding, we retained our

original recommendation.
32

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
33

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

CHAPTER 5

PLANNING DOCUMENTS NOT PREPARED OR UPDATED

States in Region III did not prepare or update water quality

planning documents as required by the Clean Water Act and

by Federal regulations. This occurred for several reasons.

Regional personnel argued that certain documents were not

actually required to be submitted, or that other documents

were suitable substitutes. Also, the responsibility for

approving some documents shifted to regional personnel who

lacked training. The absence of these documents lessens

confidence that States are effectively managing their

programs to clean up water bodies. As we explained in

Chapter 1 of this report, Federal funds are provided by

Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. These funds subsidize

State programs to fulfill Clean Water Act requirements, one

of which is to submit these documents. Moreover, the

absence of Continuing Planning Process documents has

resulted in lawsuits against EPA in Delaware, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

SUMMARY OF STATE COMPLIANCE

States Continuing

Planning

Process

Water Quality

Management

Plan

Monitoring

Strategy

Quality Assurance

Management

Plan

Project

Plans

Maryland 1986 No No No Yes

Delaware 1998 No No No Yes

District of

Columbia

No No 1988 No Yes

Pennsylvania 1998 No 1993 No Yes

Virginia 1974 No 1990 1998 Yes

West Virginia 1979 No No No Yes 
34

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Continuing

Planning Process

Documents

The Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Part 130.5 require States

to establish and maintain a Continuing Planning Process

(CPP). Also, EPA is required by the CFR to periodically

review each of these documents for accuracy. Although each

State in Region III did develop a CPP in the 1970s, they did

not maintain them, and the Region did not review them. In

four instances EPA was sued by environmental groups over

deficiencies related to these documents. In response to these

lawsuits, the Region attempted to review CPPs. However,

regional personnel were unable to do so, because they could

not locate the documents.

 

The purpose of a CPP is to outline the management processes

for a State’s water quality program. For example, such

processes relate to water quality standards and Triennial

Reviews, which as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this

report, are areas with which States have experienced

problems. The CPP also addresses how a State will develop

total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), i.e., the maximum

amount of pollution that is acceptable in each water body. 

That TMDLs are essential is evidenced by the fact that the

Agency has been sued by environmental groups in 35 States,

because it did not develop TMDLs when States failed to do

so. 

Water Quality

Management

Plans

Title 40 CFR Part 130.6 requires each State to develop a

Water Quality Management Plan, the purpose of which is to

prioritize water quality problems, consider solutions, and

recommend remedies. However, none of the States within 

Region III developed these plans. Moreover, the Region did

not request such plans based upon the assumption that

various other documents developed by the States fulfilled the

requirement. We disagree with this assumption for two

reasons. First, the various other documents only contain

some of the elements required in a Water Quality

Management Plan. Second, these documents are outdated;

they were prepared in the 1970's and early 1980's.

Monitoring

Strategy

The Clean Water Act requires States to establish the

appropriate methods, systems, and procedures necessary to

monitor and compile data on the quality of its waters. EPA’s

National Monitoring Guidance required States to document

and submit a five-year Monitoring Strategy. Maryland,
35

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Region’s

Progress

Delaware and West Virginia have yet to develop a

Monitoring Strategy document, while the other States in

Region III need to update their documents. 

A Monitoring Strategy delineates exactly how a State will

collect data to identify impaired water bodies. It is a

document that describes, for example, who will take water

samples, how often samples will be taken, and what specific

criteria the sampler will use, i.e., fecal coliform versus E.

coli. 

Quality Assurance Title 40 CFR Part 31.45 requires States to develop and

implement quality assurance practices. The special

conditions of the assistance agreements awarded under

Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, specifically requires the

States to develop (a) Quality Assurance Management Plans,

and (b) Quality Assurance Project Plans. 

According to EPA, quality assurance practices are critical

because the Agency uses environmental data to set priorities, 

measure progress and compliance, target inspections, and

identify needed enforcement actions. And, because the

States collect much of the data used by the Agency, it is

imperative EPA be assured the data was collected and

recorded accurately. Confidence in the integrity of

environmental data is weakened when evidence of quality

assurance is absent. Therefore, EPA needs to review the

specific documents that describe State policies and

procedures related to quality assurance.

None of the States except Virginia

developed the Quality Assurance

Management Plans. However,

according to regional personnel, EPA did

not provide training on how to prepare

these Plans until April 1998. 

The Region has been slowly

implementing quality assurance

requirements. In 1984 the Agency

required each Region to develop and

implement a Regional Quality

Assurance Management Plan. In fiscal years 1992 through

1995, the Agency reported its 

Management

Plans
36

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Funding

environmental data quality as a material weakness in its

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Report to the

President. In August 1994 the Agency’s Office of Research

and Development concluded the quality assurance performed

by Region III was sporadic at best. In 1996 the Region

completed its Quality Assurance Management Plan. In

accordance with this plan, in 1998 the Region trained State

personnel on how to prepare their Quality Assurance

Management Plans. The next step is to have regional

personnel trained on how to review State Quality Assurance

Project Plans. 

From fiscal year 1995 through 1998,

States in Region III received Federal

funds exceeding $35.5 million to fulfill

a wide range of water quality activities

required under the Clean Water Act, including: (a)

developing and reviewing standards; (b) monitoring and

assessing the water; and, (c) preparing the reports and

documents required under the Act. 

Conclusion Although some progress has been made towards obtaining

planning documents, the Region needs to do more to meet

the goals of the Clean Water Act. These documents are

important because adequate planning is the initial step for

States to manage their water quality programs in a

systematic and organized manner. Moreover, without these

documents, EPA is less assured that the States are using

Federal grant funds to address the highest priority water

quality problems, and leaves itself vulnerable to lawsuits by

environmental groups.

We believe there were several reasons why these documents

have not been prepared or updated as required.

Ç Regional personnel argued that certain documents were

not actually required to be submitted.

Ç Regional personnel deemed other documents as suitable

substitutes.

Ç Responsibility for approving documents shifted to

regional personnel who lacked training.
37

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Recommendations We recommend the Region III Administrator:

5.1 Require States receiving grants under Section 106 of the

Clean Water Act to develop and/or update Monitoring

Strategies and Water Quality Management Plans. 

When necessary, withhold funds from States that

neglect to do so.

5.2 Train Region III personnel so they can fulfill their

responsibilities by working with the States to help

ensure the quality of environmental data.

Region III Response to Draft Report

Region III agreed with the OIG’s conclusion that the water quality management

planning process and associated documents and processes required by the Clean

Water Act are important. As part of several memoranda of agreements with the

States, the Region has negotiated commitments by the States to update their

Continuing Planning Processes. Region III did not, however, agree with the details

in the table entitled “Summary of State Compliance.” 

Water Quality Management Plan

The report lists none of the States have Water Quality Management Plans. Region

III strongly disagreed with this statement. The State’s Water Quality Management

Plan does prioritize water quality problems, consider solutions, and recommends

remedies; however, Region III does not believe that it is embodied in a single

document, but rather an overall process which includes many different components. 

In fact, all States have recently completed Unified Watershed Assessments as part

of the Clean Water Action Plan to establish priorities in cooperation with a broad

range of State and Federal agencies. 

Quality Assurance Documents/Training 

Under Quality Assurance Management Plans, Region III said it should be noted

that prior to FY ‘97, Quality Assurance Management Plans were entitled “Quality

Assurance Program Plans” (QAPPs), which all the states submitted back in the mid

1980's. These QAPPs were approved by the Region III Environmental Services

Division (ESD) at that time. Sometime in the early 1990s, ESD disinvested in this

review and stated that it was the Project Officer’s responsibility to review Quality

Assurance Program/Project Plans (QAPjPs). Project Officers in all EPA programs

were in the same situation and were not provided with any training by ESD to
38

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

carry out this task. Also, it was never brought to anyone’s attention that the

Program Plans expired after a certain amount of time.

All of the States were represented at the Quality Assurance Management Plan

training in April of 1998. Several of the States committed to send in their Quality

Assurance Management Plans to the Regional Quality Assurance Manager in the

ESD Annapolis Office for review by mid-December. Also, the Regional Quality

Assurance Manager is planning to train the EPA Project Officers sometime in the

spring on how to review a Quality Assurance Project Plan. After training of the

Project Officers is complete, the Regional Quality Assurance Manager then plans to

go back to the States and train them on the same review. 

Up until FY 1998, according to Region III, most of the states have been sending

Quality Assurance Project Plans to EPA for review. The Water Protection Division

has been working with the Regional Quality Assurance Manager and the Regional

Quality Assurance Council since October, 1997 to complete the above-mentioned

tasks and correct the deficiencies listed in the audit report.

Monitoring Strategy

Region III stated that monitoring strategies were requested as part of the S. 106

grant guidance and not required, although several grants were conditioned to

provide a monitoring strategy. Maryland’s Section 106 grant was conditioned to

provide a monitoring strategy, and Region III is working through the Performance

Partnership Grant Program to induce Maryland to provide a strategy document. A

monitoring strategy was never requested from Delaware due to the fact that the

State had already assessed all of its waters, thereby alleviating the need for a

comprehensive strategy. Virginia has just recently submitted a new draft

monitoring strategy, and Region III is working with West Virginia to update its

Watershed Assessment Program to include a more detailed monitoring strategy.

Maryland Response to Draft Report

The CPP has been adopted in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Water

Act. MDE provided public notice on July 13, 1998 that the CPP is being revised

with public participation. MDE anticipates that such revisions and review of the

CPP will occur periodically in future years.

MDE will perform chemical and physical monitoring in accordance with the Cycling

Strategy. Numerous monitoring plans exist and incorporate QA/QC protocols. Past

305(b) Reports have described the monitoring programs that produced the data

used. MDE stated that there are well documented monitoring plans for the

Chesapeake Bay and many tributaries. Detailed monitoring plans are available for
39

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

the Lower Delmarva Peninsula and the Upper Bay as part of the Watershed

Cycling Strategy. Plans for the remaining parts of the State will be developed as

the Watershed Cycling Strategy moves on to those areas.

DNR has been working to update the State's Water Quality Monitoring Strategy to

incorporate the latest information about the State's diverse monitoring approach. 

DNR stated that continuing and substantial change in these programs have

occurred recently and need to be addressed, including the transfer of monitoring

programs between State agencies, the addition of regional TMDL-based and new

Pfiesteria monitoring efforts as well as the proposed National Estuary program

monitoring program. While each water quality monitoring effort has unique goals,

MDE and DNR have had formal meetings to coordinate the respective monitoring

efforts and Quality Assurance plans.

OIG Evaluation

The Region III response regarding training project officers satisfies

Recommendation 5.2. 

The Region presents several arguments disputing the contents of the finding. 

Where we agreed with these arguments, we modified the finding. However, in most

instances we still believe there were problems regarding planning documents.

Monitoring Strategy

The Region asserted that monitoring strategies were requested as part of the

Section 106 grant guidance, but not required (although several grants were

conditioned to provide a monitoring strategy). We disagree.

Section 106 (e) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that the Administrator shall not

make any grants under this Section to any State which has not provided or is not

carrying out as part of its program the establishment and operation of appropriate

devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile and

analyze data ....

The Section 106 Monitoring Guidance document (dated October 17, 1994) stipulates

under “Monitoring Strategy” that States should submit a current ambient

monitoring program strategy with the 106 grant application.

Therefore, we recommend that the Region require the States to submit/update their

monitoring strategies.
40

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Water Quality Management Plan

The Region asserts that this is not a single document, but rather an overall process

which includes many different components. During the audit, regional personnel

advanced the argument that “Basin Plans” fulfilled the Management Plan

requirement. We disagreed because the Basin Plans only contained some of the

Management Plan requirements. For example, according to 40 CFR Part 130.6, the

first required element of a Water Quality Management Plan is “Total Maximum

Daily Loads.” As this element is not contained in Basin Plans, we believe that it

does not fulfill the requirement. Therefore, we recommend that the Region require

that the States develop Water Quality Management Plans.
41

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

APPENDIX A

Office of Water Response to Draft Report
42

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
March 24, 1999

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OIG Draft Report on Region 3 Water Quality Standards, Monitoring

and Reporting (No. EIHWF7-03-0160)

FROM: J. Charles Fox

Assistant Administrator (4101)

TO: Michael D. Simmons

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits (2421)

The Office of Water (OW) has reviewed the Office of Inspector Generals (OIG) draft

report on Region 3 Water Quality Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting. This memorandum

responds to the two recommendations in the report directed to the Assistant Administrator for

Water.

1. Delete the option that allows States to us fecal coliform as criteria for reporting bacteria

impairments.

2. Require the use of E. coli and enterococcus tests in accordance with the Agency's 1986

Ambient Water Criteria for Bacteria.

Background

The fecal coliform bacteria enumeration test was developed in the 1960s as a repacement

for the total coliform test in sewage and in sewage-polluted ambient water. 

It was shown to be more specific to warm-blooded animal fecal waste than total coliform. 

It was the indicator selected in the early water quality criteria recommendations produced by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its predecessor Agency: the 1968 Water Quality

Criteria and the 1976 Quality Criteria for Water. It is also designated a conventional pollutant

in Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act. Following the enactment of the 1967 and 1972

Federal water pollution control acts and their requirements for water quality standards adoption

by the States, its use by the States was almost universal.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

 WATER
2

EPA seminal studies of enteric disease in recreational swimmers in the 1970s were 

the first such studies to use epidemiological techniques to statistically demonstrate which

bacterial indicators provide correlation with gastroenteritis incidence. These studies used new

laboratory methods to measure Escherichia coli, the coliform bacteria always present in warm

blooded animal feces, and enterococci, a small subgroup of 4 species which, while within the

much larger fecal steptococci group are virtually always found in warm blooded animal feces.

Statistically significant correlations were determined and criteria developed that were based on

swimmer illness rates as a function of indicator bacterial densities in ambient waters -- that is, on

a risk basis. Moreover, it was found that fecal coliform, while a valid indicator of the presence

of fecal material, did not correlate with swimmer illness rates. The 1986 criteria document used

this research to present criteria that were roughly equivalent in stringency to the previously

recommended fecal coliform criteria.

EPA encouraged the States to change to the new indicators to take advantage of their

improved ability to base decisions on swimmer illness risks. For example, beginning with the

Federal Regulation Notice announcing the availability of the criteria document that encouraged

quick State adoption (51 FR 8012, March 7, 1986), to a more recent letter (January 13, 1997)

from the Assistant Administrator for Water urging States to adopt the new indicators (copy

attached). While a number of States have done so, more than two-thirds have not. The States

tha have not adopted the new criteria have cited a number of perceived problems. Among these

are the following: the drinking water program still uses total coliform and fecal coliform (E.

coli is now an option, however), making additional demands on laboratories; the enumeration

methods for E. coli and enterococci are not in the Agency's methods at 40 CFR Part 136

and thus may pose problems if used in NPDES permits; and they have long records using Fecal

coliform and do not wish to change indicators.

Legal Standard

The water quality standards regulation addresses required criteria in State water quality

standards in 40 CFR 131.11. This regulation provides that States should establish numerical

values based an EPAs §304(a) criteria guidance, §304(a) criteria guidance modified to reflect

site-specific conditions or other scientifically defensible methods.

EPA’s Current Plans

OW agrees with the concerns expressed in the OIG’s draft report. EPA recognizes that it

is important for States to adopt microbiological water quality criteria that adequately protect

designated uses. For these reasons, the President included specific provisions concerning beach

protection in the Clean Water Action Plan that he issued in February 1998. In response to the

Action Plan, EPA recently completed an Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters that

includes a renewed commitment to encouraging State adoption of updated criteria to
3.

protect beaches. We will provide you a copy of this Action Plan as soon as copies have been

printed. In the Action Plan, EPA commits to several steps in the near future regarding water

quality criteria. These steps include conducting a literature review and analysis to verify the

continuing scientific soundness of the 1986 criteria; notifying the States of EPA's intention to

make a finding that use of fecal coliform criteria alone will not support the primary contact

designated use (presuming that position is justified by the review), and initiate a Federal

promulgation to impose the 1986 E. coli and/or enterococci criteria in addition to or in place of

outdated fecal coliform criteria where necessary. EPA is also committed to promulgating the

enumeration methods for E- coli and enterococci into 40 CFR Part 136 prior to any Federal

promulgation for a State.

Other Issues

On page 8, second paragraph, the draft report discusses State reporting of bacteriological

measures. Specifically, this paragraph states that "the Agency acquiesced to allow some States to

use less stringent criteria [fecal coliform measures] to assess the quality of their water bodies.” I

am concerned that the paragraph may be misleading. First, it asserts that fecal coliform measures

are "less protective” than EPA's 1986 criteria for enterococci and E. coli. Although EPA

recommends the use of the 1986 criteria, rather than the older fecal coliform criteria, it is not

always true that the 1986 criteria provide a higher level of protection. For a more complete

description of this issue, see the 1986 criteria document [Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Bacteria - 1986, EPA 440-5-84-002, January, 1986 at page 8]. Second, the draft report implies

that the Agency in some way lowered its reporting requirements. This is not the case. EPA's

reporting guidance is that States should determine whether the designated uses and water quality

criteria in their adopted water quality standards are being attained. More specifically, our

reporting guidance to States, issued as Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water

Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports), EPA 841-B-95-001, May 1995, and reiterated in

Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b)

Reports) and Electronic Updates, EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002D, September 1997, provides

that "States should base use support determinations on their own State criteria for bacteriological

indicators." EPA 1997, page 3-34. The Guidelines go on to say that "EPA encourages States to

adopt [the 1986 criteria]." Therefore, until a State has adopted the 1986 criteria, EPA cannot

mandate the 1986 measures in State reporting, although we would prefer such reporting. We

would be happy to work with your staff in revising the paragraph in the draft report.

Summary

I believe that EPA's planned actions described above will achieve the OIG’s

recommendations on a reasonable time schedule. At the completion of the Clean Water Action

Plan's and the Beach Action Plan's measures for beach protection, all of the States will have the

recommended bacterial indicators in place. At that point all of the States will be capable of using

E. coli or enterococci for purposes of section 305(b) reporting, and the draft OIG report's

concern about State reporting of bacterial impairments will be moot.
4

If you have any further questions or if you need additional infonnation, please call me or

bave your staff contact Dr. Elizabeth Southerland, Acting Director, Standards and Applied

Science Division, at 202-260-3966.

Attachments
Jan 13, 1997

Honorable Michelle Brown

Commissioner

Environmental Conservation Department

P.O. Box O

Juneau, Alaska 99811

Dear Ms. Brown:

I am writing to share with you the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) concern

with public health risks posed by contaminated bathing beaches and to ask for your participation

and support in reducing these risks. Scientific evidence documenting the risk of infectious

diseases caused by microbial organisms in recreational waters continues to grow -- for example, a

recent epidemiological study in Santa Monica Bay, California, documented an increased risk of

illness associated with swimming near storm drains. The Santa Monica study is only one of many. 

Additionally, the number of beach closures reported every year is on the rise. To counteract this

growing problem and to ensure public notification when they may be at risk of illness and disease,

the EPA is in the process of establishing a national program to protect public health at our nation's

beaches (see Enclosure 1). I welcome and strongly encourage your participation in this effort.

The national beach program is directed towards reducing the health risks associated with 

recreational waters through better science and improving coordination among the various Federal,

State, Tribal and local agencies responsible for reducing contamination and notifying the public of

health threats. A cornerstone of the program is State and Tribal adoption of EPA's 1986 updated

bacteriological ambient water quality criteria (see Federal Register Notice, Enclosure II). I

strongly encourage all States and Tribes, that have hot done so, to adopt these criteria as soon as

possible.

The national beach program will support State, Tribal and local efforts by providing better

technical assistance and improving coordination among appropriate agencies and the public. The

program will focus on four specific areas:

T improving the scientific and policy foundations in support of local, State and Tribal

actions;

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

 WATER
T providing improved test methods and indicators to better protect the health of beach goers

in a more timely and comprehensive manner;

T developing better predictive models to help notify the public of potential risks; and

T enhancing the public's right-to-know about the safety of their local beaches by establishing

and disseminating a national beach contamination data base.

Although many of the activities will be in the making for several years, there are actions

that can and should be taken immediately. We will also be inviting your agency to participate in a

national conference on this subject and to contribute information to a national beach/health data

base. Your agency will be notified about these as soon as they are scheduled.

ln addition to the areas outlined in Enclosure 1, EPA will continue its current work with

the States to control the sources of microbial pathogens. These activities include controlling

urban wet weather flows such as sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows and urban

storm water runoff. Currently, several Federal Advisory Committees are working with EPA to

develop detailed control strategies for these sources.

As the Agency implements the national beach program outlined above, we will ask for

your continued involvement and provide you with more detailed information. If you have any

initial questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or have your staff call 

Dr. Tudor Davies, Director, Office of Science and Technology, at (202) 260-5400 or 

Mr. Rick Hoffmann, Beach Health Protection Team Leader, at (202) 260-0642.

Sincerely,

Robert Perciasepe

Assistant Administrator

Enclosures (2)
ENCLOSURE I

National Beach Program

1. Improved Scientific and Policy Foundation for Local State and Tribal Actions

Water Quality Criteria & Standards, To improve the scientific and policy foundation for

State and local actions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is encouraging all

States and Tribes to adopt updated bacteriological ambient water quality standards protective of

public health. In 1986, EPA issued a revision to its bacteriological ambient water quality criteria

recommendations (51 FR 8012, March 7,1986) to protect body contact recreation. The revised

criteria introduced new indicator bacteria, E coli and enterococci, which provide a better

correlation with swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness than the previous criteria

recommendations for fecal coliform bacteria. The revised criteria are particularly useful to public

health administrators because they enable quantitative estimates of illness rates associated with

swimming in polluted water. Since EPA published the 1996 criteria recommendations, several

States and Indian Tribes have adopted the revised criteria into State or Tribal water quality

standards.

The 1986 criteria were derived from a series of epidemiological studies which established

a dose-response relationship between swimming-associated illness and water quality. Moving to

these criteria, therefore, will ensure that States and Tribes adopt standards that are more riskbased. Although there continues to be a residual risk associated with swimming and other body

contact activities, EPA believes that the 1986 criteria provide for an increased level of protection

and that the methodology allows States and Tribes to set even more stringent levels of protection,

if appropriate.

As part of EPA's national program, EPA strongly encourages all States and Tribes that

have not done so to adopt EPA's 1986 criteria to facilitate defensible risk management decisions

for protection of human health in recreational waters. We offer the support of staff in EPA's

Regional and Headquarter's Offices to assist your organization in adopting the 1986 criteria at 

the next available opportunity. If your jurisdiction has already adopted the revised standards, EPA

offers its technical assistance to help implement these standards. For example, EPA could help

agencies respond to circumstances where site-specific factors influence these criteria.

Policy Dialogue -- National Conference. EPA also intends to establish a policy dialogue

with local, State and Tribal agencies to discuss the fall range of issues related to microbiological

contamination of recreational waters. To facilitate these discussions, EPA will convene a national

beach and public health protection conference for representative officials. The
conference will review current beach health activities, discuss possible changes and identify

specific actions to protect public health at bathing beaches and recreational waters. EPA would

then update its beach health program using conference recommendation. When the initial

planning is complete, we will notify appropriate agencies and interested parties of the date and

location.

2. Provide Improved Test Methods and Indicators to Better protect the

Health of Beach Goers

EPA recognizes that there is a need to provide improved test methods and monitoring

guidance to responsible agencies. EPA will Provide technical assistance to State and private

laboratories to implement recently developed methods for enterococcus testing. This new

methodology will provide results within twenty four hours, half the time required by the old

method. EPA will continue to conduct additional research to improve methods for detection and

quantification of bacterial contamination. EPA will also conduct research to develop a new

generation of indicators for water-borne pathogens.

3. Develop Better Predictive Models to Help Notify the Public of Potential Risks

EPA will work with local, State and Tribal governments and other Federal agencies to

develop models that can be used to predict when bathing beach contamination events may occur.

These models will assist public health officials in determining when beach warnings may be

needed. EPA will initiate a multi-year effort, working with States and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, to develop, verify, and apply these models at several selected

locations in both coastal and inland waters.

4. Enhancing the Public's Right-to-know about the Safety of Their Local Beaches by

Establishing and Disseminating a National Beach Contamination Data Base

EPA believes there is a need to improve the overall quality and availability of public

information about beach health protection activities; these include: monitoring and assessment

activities, water quality standards, beach closures, etc. Many organizations share responsibility 

for these activities. Consequently, EPA will work with environmental health officials from 

Tribal, State, county, and city agencies, as well as from various interest groups to

compile and verify this information. EPA will then input the information into a comprehensive

data base and make it available on the Internet.
51

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

Region III Response to Draft Report
52

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-910018

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

SUBJECT: Draft Report of Audit on Region III Water Quality

Standards, Monitoring and Reporting

Audit Report Number E1HWF7-03-0160

February 19, 1999

FROM: W. Michael McCabe

Regional Administrator (3RA00)

TO: Michael D. Simmons

Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits (2421) 

In response to the draft audit report and recommendations, we offer the following comments. 

Both of the responsible Region III offices submitted comments which are summarized below and

detailed in the attachments. We have also attached a set of complete responses as submitted by

each of the affected EPA offices. 

The Environmental Services Division (ESD) generally agreed with the draft report, but noted

that some clarification is needed. Recommendation 2.1 proposed deleting the option that allows

states to use fecal coliform as a criterion for reporting bacteriological impairments.

ESD believes that the states should be able to use fecal coliform until a new indicator is adopted.

The Water Protection Division (WPD) generally agreed with the report findings that the states

have been lax in completing timely triennial reviews and remedying EPA disapprovals; and that

EPA’s efforts in the past have not been successful in forcing states to move forward. The Region

also agrees that the “elevation process” to request that the Administrator move to promulgate

Federal standards where the states’ standards are deficient has not been widely used in Region III

or, as a matter of fact, in the rest of the nation. Previous efforts to improve state standards have

relied on an approach which anticipated continuous improvement in state standards, while

maintaining the state’s prerogative to adopt its own regulations. Recent litigation, starting with a

lawsuit in Pennsylvania which ordered the Administrator to promulgate Federal water quality

standards for Pennsylvania, was a major step in changing EPA’s role in the state’s water quality

programs. Region III is currently aggressively attempting to remedy outstanding water quality

standards disapprovals and this has become, in fact a national priority.

-Bacteria In Water Not Properly Assessed or Reported

We concur that there are inconsistencies in the form of bacteria criteria adopted by Region III

states and that EPA has not taken formal action to disapprove states’ standards when Enteroccus

and E. Coli were not adopted to replace fecal coliform criteria. We are expecting
-2-

Headquarters to address the question of EPA’s position and guidance regarding bacteria.

For Maryland, in particular, we disagree with Recommendation 2.1, “Delete the option that

allows states to use fecal coliform as a criteria for reporting bacteria impairments.” If a state has a

fecal coliform standard already in place, it would be inappropriate to base impairment decisions on

a different, unadopted criterion.

The draft report recommended rescinding the approval of the Impaired List (waters exceeding

fecal coliform standards). We do not concur with this recommendation. On April 17, 1998,

Region III commented on MDE’s draft list of impaired waters. On September 4, 1998, MDE

clarified its interpretation of the fecal coliform standard, which we determined to be reasonable.

-Deficient Standards Were Not Corrected

EPA Region III agrees that the Region III states have not been timely in completing triennial

reviews and, as a result, deficiencies now exist in standards that were previously approved. Also,

EPA agrees that there are state standards which were disapproved for which EPA Region III has

not pursued Federal promulgation by the Administrator. EPA Region III is aggressively pushing

the states to move to correct outstanding disapprovals and to initiate triennial reviews. Triennial

reviews have been completed in Virginia and West Virginia, with the approval/disapproval

determinations pending.

The report notes that EPA Region III did not issue “Notices of Deficiency” to the states or

elevate these issues to the EPA Administrator, who would then have the authority to pursue

Federal promulgation, although not the obligation. EPA Region III agrees with the importance of

notifying the states when changes are needed and also to selective use of Federal promulgation 

where other efforts have failed. The report, however, implies that “Notices of Deficiency” are a

formal tool available to the Region. In fact, EPA Region III sends letters to the states which

identify areas to be modified or considered during the triennial review, which are more aptly

called simply, notices of deficiency. If a state has not submitted revisions to the Regional

Administrator for approval/disapproval, the only formal recourse to initiate change is for the

Administrator to take steps to initiate a Federal promulgation in accordance with Section

303(c)(4)(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The draft report recommended that the Region coordinate with EPA Headquarters to

promulgate standards if states do not correct deficiencies with 90 days as allowed by the CWA. 

This is technically incorrect. The CWA only requires that “disapprovals” be corrected with 90

days. There is no regulatory time limit for correction of deficiencies although the Region works

to get the states to address them during the next triennial review.
-3-

-Missed Opportunities to Correct Standards

The draft report recommends that the Administrator be requested to initiate triennial reviews in

Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Virginia. We believe it is more

appropriate to initiate a 303(c)(4)(B) action which allows other options such as recommending

that the Administrator make a finding of deficiency and promulgate appropriate standards. The

draft report recommended withholding Section 106 funding from any state whose triennial review

is overdue. We are considering this and have done so in the past.

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Robert G. Reed at (215)

814-5270.

Attachment

cc: Thomas Maslany (3WP00)

Stanley Laskowski (3ES00) 

Carl Jannetti (3AI00)

Jonathan Fox (4101)
Recommendations

As noted in the draft report, the Assistant Administrator for Water is addressing the first

two recommendations in Chapter 2.

Recommendation 2.3

Send a Deficiency Notice to Maryland based on how the state implements their 

standards. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should either not require a 

sanitary survey to confirm contamination or perform the surveys whenever testing reveals

elevated bacteria levels.

Response - On February 4, 1998, the Regional Administrator wrote to the Maryland Department 

of Environment (MDE) requesting development of a schedule for completing a triennial 

review of water quality standards. On March 2, 1998, the Region wrote to MDE to 

provide detailed guidance on 24 items for the triennial review and to ask MDE to 

“provide data that shows all use I waters are meeting the criteria in accordance with 40 

CFR 131.11(a).”

On March 30, 1998, MDE wrote to the Regional Administrator providing a schedule for 

the triennial review including final adoption of water quality standards by August 1999.

Recommendation 2.4

Rescind the approval of the Impaired List or assure that the additional monitoring 

promised by Maryland is promptly carried out.

Response - On April 17, 1998, the Region commented on Maryland’s draft list of impaired 

waters pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Our comments

requested an explanation as to why certain waters which exceeded the numeric criteria for

fecal coliform were not on the Impaired List. In a September 4, 1998 letter, MDE

clarified its interpretation of its fecal coliform standard to support the decision that their 

data was insufficient to determine that the water violated the fecal coliform standard.

We determined that MDE’s interpretation was reasonable, particularly in light of the 

state’s commitment, by letter dated August 12, 1998, to allocate additional resources to

monitoring where data was insufficient to make a testing determination. We agree that 

follow-up is necessary to ensure that the state follows through with this commitment. We

do not concur with Recommendation 2.4 that EPA should rescind its approval of

Maryland’s Section 303(d) list (Impaired List).

Recommendation 3.1

Send Notices of Deficiency to each state in the Region clearly identifying the inadequate

standards.

Response - We recommend that “Notices of Deficiency” be changed to lower case.
-2-

Recommendation 3.2

Coordinate with EPA Headquarters to promulgate standards if the states do not correct

the deficiencies within the 90 days allowed by the CWA.

Response - This is technically incorrect. The CWA only requires that disapprovals be corrected

within 90 days. There is no time limit for correction of identified deficiencies that are not

disapprovals. We will try to get the states to address these deficiencies during the next

triennial review.

Recommendation 4.1

Request the Administrator to initiate triennial reviews in Maryland, Delaware, the District

of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Response - We believe it would be more appropriate to state that the Administrator initiate a 303 

(c)(4)(B) action. By specifying initiation of a triennial review, we neglect other options 

such as simply recommending that the Administrator make a finding of deficiency and

promulgate appropriate standards.

Recommendation 4.2 

Withhold a portion of Section 106 funding from any state whose triennial review is 

overdue.

Response - We have certain discretionary authority to award grants that condition grant funding

upon the completion of certain activities and are considering doing so, and have done so in

the past.

Recommendation 5.1

Prioritize water quality planning documents and emphasize their importance to Region 

personnel.

Response - No comment

Recommendation 5.2 

Require states receiving grants under Section 106 of the CWA to develop and/or update 

required planning documents. When necessary, withhold funds from states that neglect to

do so.

Response - We have discretionary authority to award grants that condition funding upon 

completion of certain activities and are considering doing so, and have done so in the past.
-3-

Recommendation 5.3 

Have Region III personnel trained in their responsibilities for ensuring the quality of 

environmental data.

Response - No comment

General Comments

In addition to those comments directly responding to each recommendation, we have

comments on the other portions of the draft report.

Generally, we agree with the OIG’s recommendation and observation that the states have

been lax in completing timely triennial reviews and remedying EPA disapprovals of state

Water Quality Standards (WQS) submittal. Region III’s efforts to move the states

forward have not been successful. Region III has not used the escalation process to have

the Administrator move to promulgate Federal standards or find those state standards

deficient in accordance with Section 303(c)(4) of the CWA. The Administrator’s

promulgation of WQS for Pennsylvania was a major step in changing EPA’s role in the

states’ WQS programs. We are aggressively attempting to remedy the outstanding WQS

disapprovals and, in fact, this effort is a national priority. 

-The Antidegradation Policy does not target improvements but is aimed at protecting

existing water quality, including waters that do not meet standards as well as high quality

and pristine waters.

-Tools available to the Region to compel a full triennial review, a revision of a 

Continuing Planning Processes (CPP) or a revision to approved standards are very limited. 

The capitalization of Notice of Deficiency appears to label it as a formal tool available to

EPA. EPA has notified states regarding WQS which would be considered inadequate if

submitted for approval. We expect states to address these deficiencies in the next triennial

review. The Administrator decides if these deficiencies are worthy of Federal

promulgation.

-There seems to be a misinterpretation on page 10 of the report. Delaware is reported as

having 651 assessed miles with 84 miles impaired by bacteria. The 1996 S.305b report

from Delaware actually shows 801 miles assessed with 548 miles or 68 percent impaired

by bacteria. The reference in the report is “impairment of aquatic life support and 

primary recreation.”

-We believe the section beginning on page 18, Deficiencies in Other States Within Region

III is inaccurate for Delaware and West Virginia. EPA disapproved portions of 

Delaware’s WQS in April 1998 and have agreed to promulgate Federal standards for 

those disapproved.

Although “42" problems were cited for West Virginia the number, itself, is not as 

significant as the importance of the individual provisions. There are significant 

differences in their importance.
-4-

-Page 20, Region III Position does not reflect one very important position, resource

constraints. Resources are lacking both at Headquarters and Region III to undertake a

promulgation when a state does not make the required changes. Federal promulgation is

usually reserved for precedent-setting situations which require a complex analysis in order

to be consistent with all other states.

-The Chapter 5 discussion of planning documents not being prepared or updated should

take note of the fact that monitoring strategies were requested as part of the S.106 grant

guidance and were not required (as specified on page 27), although several grants were

conditioned to provide a monitoring strategy. Maryland’s S.106 grant was conditioned to

provide a monitoring strategy. It was never requested of Delaware because they had

already assessed all of their waters, thereby alleviating the need. Virginia has just recently

submitted a new draft monitoring strategy and we are currently working with West

Virginia to include a more detailed monitoring strategy. 

-The Summary of State Compliance Table in Chapter 5 also shows the status of 

submitted Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP). Contrary to the table, QAPP’s were

submitted by Delaware in 1991 and Virginia in 1992. The table should be revised, as well

as the first sentence on page 28.

-It is inaccurate to state that the Region has been unwilling to enforce the states’

responsibilities under the CWA and Federal regulations because it considered Quality

Assurance Management Plans to be a low priority. Until FY 1998 most of the states have

been sending QAPP’s to EPA for review. The Water Protection Division has been

working with the Regional Quality Assurance Manager to correct the deficiencies listed in

the report.

-We agree that the water quality management planning process and associated documents

required by the CWA are important. We disagree with the details in the Summary of State

Compliance Table on page 25. The report shows that none of the states have Water

Quality Management Plans. We strongly disagree. We do not believe that a state’s

“Water Quality Management Plan” is embodied in a single document but, rather an overall

process which includes many different components. All states have recently completed

Unified Watershed Assessments as part of the Clean Water Action Plan to establish 

priorities in cooperation with a broad range of state and Federal agencies.
-5-

GLOSSARY COMMENTS

Anti-degradation - The definition should be clarified to read that not just

Policy improvements to water quality are protected, but the

existing quality.

Designated Use - We suggest the following change, “The use of a water body

designated by state regulations that include, at a minimum,

drinking water protection of aquatic life and recreation 

(i.e., swimming, boating or white water rafting).” The minimum

uses as defined by the CWA, Section 101 are limited to fishable

and swimmable uses. The drinking water use is required where the 

use actually occurs or can, at the discretion of state, be applied

statewide.

Notice of Deficiency - We agree with the intent but not the way it is portrayed throughout

the report. The capitalization implies that it is a formal process 

under a statute or regulation. Failure to issue such letters should 

not imply a violation of statute or regulation.

Toxic Pollutants - The second sentence should be modified, as follows:

“States are required to adopt specific numeric criteria for these

pollutants that are at least as stringent as EPA criteria 

recommendations or provide a scientifically defensible rationale

for a less stringent criteria.”

Additional Specific Comments 

Chapter 1, Page 2, 3rd full paragraph - We count 102 toxic pollutants with EPA criteria

 recommendations. We suggest that it should be

 38 other pollutants. We recommend that limits

 be changed to “criteria” and stringent be changed

 to “protective.”

Chapter 3, Page 16, 1st paragraph - We are concerned that the wording concerning criteria 

 could be confusing. We suggest the following 

 modification: “Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water 

 Act requires the states to adopt criteria for all toxic 

 pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean 

 Water Act for which EPA has published criteria under 

 Section 304(a ), the discharge or presence of which in the 

 affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere 

 with those designated uses adopted by the state.”
-6-

Page 17 - “Incorrect Criteria for Toxic Pollutants”

Because of EPA revisions in 1996 some of EPA’s

recommended metals criteria are now less stringent

than Maryland’s criteria. We recommend that the

following revision be made. “The net effect is that the

numeric levels set by Maryland may be less stringent

than the levels currently recommended by EPA.

Consequently, the state’s standards may allow more

pollution...”

Page 18, Delaware - We recommend this section be rewritten, as follows: “In

1993, EPA identified a number of deficiencies with

Delaware’s water quality standards program. After five

years of discussion between the state and the Region, many

of the deficiencies still remain unresolved. In April 1998,

the Region finally sent a letter to the state disapproving four

provisions of the standard and identifying a number of

provisions that the Region intends to recommend that the

EPA Administrator find deficient and promulgate replacement

standards should the state not make the recommended 

corrections.”

Page 19, West Virginia - We believe this misrepresents our letters to the state,

especially the use of definitive numbers of “problems.”

In response to the West Virginia WQS Triennial Review

submitted October 12, 1993, EPA identified four sections of 

the West Virginia standards which were being disapproved

due to inconsistencies with Federal regulations. In addition,

four sections were conditionally approved and four 

recommendations were made to allow the state to further 

clarify the intentions of these sections. Recommendations

made to the state are in no way considered deficiencies but 

are comments meant to assist the state in providing further

clarification and consistency.

Based on the next Triennial Review package on August 11,

1995, EPA was able to fully remove two of four disapproved

sections from 1993. Of the remaining two issues, we were

able to partially remove the disapprovals.

We are currently reviewing the state’s 1998 Triennial Review

and it is premature to indicate what provisions will be found 

deficient.
-7-

Page 20, Region III Position - There is one position we believe was proffered during

interviews that is not reflected in this section. We suggest the

following be added: “The regions and Headquarters lack the

resources, both in terms of personnel and funding, necessary

to undertake a promulgation when the state does not make

the required changes.”

Chapter 4, Page 21, - Two changes needed to the chart. West Virginia

Triennial Reviews Chart submitted a review package in July 1998 and Virginia

submitted a package in August 1998.

Page 23, District of Columbia - The District has informed EPA that the final triennial review

package will not be submitted until at least fall ’99.

Page 23, Pennsylvania - It would be more correct to say that Pennsylvania personnel

were occupied with the Regulatory Basics Initiative, including

modification to the water quality standards regulations which

are intended to constitute a triennial review.

Chapter 5, Page 25, - On July 13, 1998, Maryland provided public notice of its

Summary of State Compliance intent to revise its CPP and invited public comment. MDE

Table agreed to update its CPP and transmit it to EPA on or before

October 1, 1999.

Page 27, Quality Assurance - Under “Management Plans” it should be noted that prior to

FY ‘97 Quality Assurance Management Plans were entitled,

“Quality Assurance Program Plans,” which were

approved by the Environmental Services Division (ESD). In

the early 1990's ESD disinvested in this review and it became

the project officer’s responsibility to review Quality

Assurance Program/Project Plans. Project officers in all EPA

programs were assigned responsibility, but ESD did not

provide any training.

All of the states were represented at the Quality Assurance

Management Plan training in April 1998. Several have

committed to submit their plans for review to the ESD

Annapolis Office by mid-December. Plans have been made

to train EPA project officers in the states on the same review.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

SUBJECT: Draft Report of Audit on Region III Water Quality

Standards, Monitoring and Reporting - 

November 25, 1998

December 17, 1998

FROM: Thomas J. Maslany, Director

Water Protection Division (3WP00)

TO: Thomas J. Gallagher (3PM70)

The Water Protection Division has reviewed the subject draft report. We spent significant time

with the staff from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on this audit and appreciate the

effort spent learning the complex and challenging details of the water quality standards (WQS)

program. We have a number of corrections and clarifications to the language in the report, which

are included as an attachment to this memo. The comments in the attachment are arranged in the

order that they appear in the report and do not reflect order of importance. We will highlight

below our more significant comments.

Generally, we agree with the OIG’s observation that the States have been lax in completing

timely triennial reviews and remedying EPA disapprovals of State WQS submittals, and Region

III’s efforts to date have not been successful in moving the States forward. Likewise, EPA

Region III has not used the escalation process to have the Administrator of EPA move to

promulgate Federal standards or find those State standards deficient in accordance with Section

303(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act. The EPA Regional Administrator’s authority is limited to

approving or disapproving those water quality States which are new or revised and submitted to

EPA by the State for review after formal adoption as State law. The role and importance of

Federal promulgations have increased significantly over the past five years. The Administrator’s

promulgation of WQS for Pennsylvania was a major step in changing the nature of EPA’s role in

the States’ water quality standards programs. We are aggressively attempting to remedy the

outstanding WQS disapprovals and, in fact, this effort is a national priority.

The Antidegradation Policy is represented as a policy that protects water quality

improvements. This is incorrect. The Antidegradation Policy is a three-tiered policy that

is targeted at protected existing water quality from being lowered, including waters that

do not meet standards as well as high quality and pristine waters.
2

The processes available to the Region to force the States to complete a full triennial

review, submit a revised Continuing Planning Process (CPP), or revise standards that have

been previously approved is very limited. The OIG uses the term “Notice of Deficiency”

throughout this report. The capitalization appears to represent that the Notice of

Deficiency is a formal tool available to EPA Region III through regulation or statute. As a

matter of practice, EPA Region III has notified states of those areas of a State’s WQS

regulations which have been approved or overlooked by EPA in the past but which would

not be considered adequate if the regulations were submitted to EPA Region III for

approval today. At a minimum, we would expect the States to address these deficiencies

in the next triennial review. The decision on whether these deficiencies are worthy of

formal action through Federal promulgation rests with the Administrator. 

We believe that the section beginning on page 18 entitled “Deficiencies in Other States

Within Region III,” is inaccurate, specifically for Delaware and West Virginia. EPA

disapproved portions of Delaware’s WQS in April 1998 and we have reached agreement

with Delaware to move ahead on a cooperative to promulgate Federal standards to replace

those which were disapproved. It should be noted for West Virginia that the reference to

“42 problems” implies that there is some relative weight assigned to the number of specific

provisions which are considered unacceptable. In fact, there are significant differences in

importance of the individual provisions. Also, the large number of items disapproved also

reflects that, several years ago, EPA Region III would have acted to disapprove State

WQS provisions which had been previously approved by EPA and not revised. This

limitation on Regional authority has recently been clarified at the national level.

In Chapter 3 under “Region III Position,” we believe that there was one very important

position, resource constraints, that was presented during interviews that is not reflected in

this section. The Regions and Headquarters lack the resources, both in terms of personnel

and funding, necessary to undertake a promulgation whenever the State does not make the

required changes. Federal promulgation for an individual State by the Administrator also

requires a complex analysis for consistency with all other States, since the Administrator’s

promulgation is usually precedent-setting at a national level. Federal promulgation is

usually reserved for very serious situations where the national interpretation is clear,

independent of the context within individual State standards.

Regarding Maryland’s bacteria criteria and its implementation, we agree that there are

concerns, but do not concur with Recommendation 2.4 that EPA should rescind its

approval of Maryland’s Section 303(d) list (referred to as the Impaired List).

Recommendation 3.2 is technically incorrect. The Clean Water Act only requires that

disapprovals be corrected within 90 days. There is no time limit for corrections of
3

identified deficiencies that are not disapprovals, although we try to get the States to address

these deficiencies during the next triennial review.

Regarding Recommendation 4.1, we believe it would be more appropriate to state that the

Administrator initiate an action under Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act. By

specifying initiation of a triennial review, we neglect other options such as recommending

that the Administrator make a finding of deficiency and promulgate appropriate standards.

Regarding the adoption and implementation of bacteria criteria, we agree that there are

inconsistencies among the States, but expect EPA Headquarters to address the findings

and recommendations in the Report regarding bacteria.

It is inaccurate to state that the Region has been unwilling to enforce the States’

responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and Federal Regulations because it considered

Quality Assurance Management Plans to be a low priority. Until FY ‘98, most of the

States have been sending Quality Assurance Project Plans to EPA for review. The Water

Protection Division has been working with the Regional Quality Assurance Manager to

correct the deficiencies listed in the audit report.

We agree with the OIG’s conclusion that the water quality management planning process

and associated documents and processes required by the Clean Water Act are important. 

We have, as part of several memoranda of agreements with the States, negotiated

commitments by the States to update their Continuing Planning Processes. We do not,

however, agree with the details in the table entitled “Summary of State Compliance” on

page 25 of the report. Our comments are described in the attachment to this

memorandum.

Regarding recommendations 4.2 and 5.2, we agree that we have certain discretionary

authority to award grants that condition grant funding upon the completion of certain

activities and are considering doing so, and have done so in the past.

 

Our comments do not address Recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 of the draft report. Since these

recommendations are being made to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, we rely

on that office to provide any response to these recommendations, or the data the OIG used to

make its conclusions. 

We look forward to concurring on the final response to the OIG on the draft audit. We suggest

that once the OIG has the opportunity to review the response that we schedule a meeting with

their office so that we may discuss our comments. We did note that similar audits are being

conducted in Regional offices around the country, and we would appreciate being kept apprised

of the findings that the OIG is making nationally. If you have any questions regarding the

Division’s comments, please contact Evelyn S. MacKnight of my staff at extension 5717.
Attachment

cc: Stanley L. Laskowski (3ES00)

Christopher Day (3RC20) 

Stefania Shamet (3RC13)

Tudor Davies (EPA-HQ OST)

 Elizabeth Southerland (EPA-HQ OST)
Water Protection Division 

Comments on the Office of Inspector General Draft Report of Audit on Region III

Water Quality Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting

Glossary

Antidegradation Policy: This definition implied that this policy ensures that water quality

improvements are protected. This is incorrect, it is not just the improvements to water

quality that are protected, but the existing quality. It may be necessary to clarify that

“existing uses” means those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November

28, 1975.

Designated Use: We suggest the following language be substituted in order to clarify this

definition: “The use for a water body designated by State regulation that include, at a

minimum, protection of aquatic life and recreation (i.e., swimming, boating or white water

rafting), and may include such uses as drinking water protection.” The minimum uses to

be protected as defined by the Clean Water Act Section 101 are limited to “fishable and

swimmable” uses. The drinking water use is required where the use actually occurs or can,

at the discretion of the State, be applied Statewide. 

Notice of Deficiency: The Water Protection Division agrees with the general intent of this

term, but can not agree with the way the term is portrayed throughout this report. By

capitalizing this term in the report (where it appears outside of the Glossary), it implies

that this is a formal process under the water quality standards statute or regulation. 

Whereas we agree with the recommendation from the OIG that such a letter should be

utilized to notify States of inadequacies in WQS regulations which should be changed,

failure by the Region to issue such letters should not imply a violation of statute or

regulation.

Toxic Pollutants: The second sentence should be modified to read as follows: “States are

required to adopt specific numeric criteria for these pollutants that are at least as stringent

as EPA criteria recommendations, or provide a scientifically defensible rationale for a less

stringent criteria.

Chapter 1

Page 2, first full paragraph. This paragraph should be modified to reflect our comment on

the term Designated Use above.

Page 2, third full paragraph. In the first sentence, we count 102 toxic pollutants with EPA

criteria recommendations, and we would suggest that “30 other pollutants” be changed to
 “approximately 38 other pollutants.” The use of the term “limits” can be confusing. “Limits” is

used more often to describe the number which results when criteria are implemented in National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, i.e., water quality-based effluent limits. 

We would recommend that “limits” be changed to “criteria”. In the last sentence, in order to

reflect our comments on the term Toxic Pollutants above, we recommend that “stringent” be

changed to “protective.”

Chapter 2

Page 14, Recommendation 2.3. On February 4, 1998, the EPA Regional Administrator

wrote to Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Secretary asking that MDE

develop a schedule for completing a triennial review of water quality standards. On

March 2, 1998, the Region provided a letter under the signature of Patricia Gleason, the

chief of the MD/DC Branch in the Office of Watersheds providing to MDE guidance on

24 items for the triennial review; these items included an antidegradation policy and

implementation procedures, correction of dissolved metals criteria, inclusive toxic criteria,

and review of designated uses. The Region enclosed detailed guidance material on many

of the 24 items. We also provided guidance for adoption of E.Coli and enterococci

bacteria standards and asked for clarification of MDE’s current bacteriological water

quality standards. Specifically, the March 2, 1998 letter asked MDE to provide data that

shows all use I waters are meeting the criteria in accordance with 40 CFR 131.11(a).

On March 30, 1998, J. L. Hearn of MDE wrote to the Regional Administrator providing a

schedule for the triennial review; this schedule called for final adoption of water quality

standards by August 1999. Various conference calls were held with MDE to discuss their

progress on the review from April 1998 to November 1998. On September 22, 1998, MDE

wrote EPA providing responses to nine of the technical items for review. On November 18,

1998, MDE announced public hearings to be held on January 19, 21, and 26, 1999 for the

purpose of reviewing applicable Water Quality Standards. 

Page 14, Recommendation 2.4. On April 17, 1998, the Region provided comment on

Maryland’s draft list of impaired waters pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA. Among

other comments, EPA noted that 1995 STORET fecal coliform data indicated certain

waters exceeding paragraph (b) of its numeric criteria, i.e., greater than 10% exceedance

of the numeric criterion of 400 MPN/100 ml. Our comments requested clarification or an

explanation as to why those water bodies were not listed as impaired for fecal coliform. 

On September 4, 1998, in a letter from Michael S. Haire, Director of Technical and

Regulatory Services Administration, MDE clarified its interpretation of its fecal coliform

standard. MDE informed the Region that it interpreted paragraph (b) of its fecal coliform

numeric criterion as requiring no less than five samples collected within a 30-day period,
to account for variability in sampling and statistical estimation. Where less than five samples

were collected, MDE determined that the data was insufficient to support a determination that

the water violated the fecal coliform standard.

Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires the State to identify waters for which technology-based limits are

insufficient “to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters.” In compiling

its list, the State must consider existing and readily available data. Under Section 303(d)(2),

EPA must approve or disapprove the list. If EPA disapproves the list, it must identify such

waters to the extent necessary “to implement the water quality standards applicable to such

waters.” Maryland considered the 1995 STORET fecal coliform data, but determined not to

rely exclusively upon that data for a determination of impairment. 

We believe that Section 303(d) is not an appropriate vehicle for disputing the appropriateness of

specific State water quality standards. The appropriate vehicle for rectifying concerns regarding

the appropriateness of a State water quality standard is EPA’s authorities under Section 303(c). 

We also believe, consistent with informal guidance provided by the national TMDL program,

that it is appropriate for the State to base its listing determination on its interpretation of its own

standard. We accepted Maryland’s interpretation that a determination of impairment should not

be based on a single sample as reasonable, particularly in light of the State’s commitment, in a

letter dated August 12, 1998, to allocate additional resources to monitoring where data was

insufficient to make a listing determination. We agree that follow-up is necessary to ensure that

the State follows through with this commitment. 

Chapter 3

Page 15, second paragraph. Please see our comments on “Notices of Deficiency” under

Glossary.

Page 15, (1) under “Water quality standards consist of three elements”. Please see our

comments on “Designated Use” under Glossary.

Page 15, (3) under “Water quality standards consist of three elements”. Please see our

comments on “Antidegradation Policy” under Glossary. We suggest that the language

here be modified to read “...to ensure that existing water quality is conserved, maintained

and protected.”

Page 16, first paragraph of “Missing Criteria for Toxic Pollutants”. We are concerned

that the wording concerning criteria could be confusing. In the third sentence, it reads

that the Clean Water Act requires the States to have criteria at least as equal to EPA

recommended criteria. This could have two meanings. One, which we believe is not the
OIG’s intention in this context, is that the criteria has to be set equal to EPA criteria. The

other, which would be correct, is that a state must adopt criteria for all toxic pollutants for

which EPA has published criteria. If we are correct in our assumption, we suggest the

following modification: “Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires the States

to adopt criteria for all toxic pollutants pursuant Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act

for which EPA has published criteria under Section 304(a), the discharge or presence of

which in the affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere with those

designated uses adopted by the State.” States, including Maryland, have used the lack of

evidence that specific toxic pollutants would not be expected to interfere with designated

uses to justify adoption of those criteria.

Page 17, “Incorrect Criteria for Toxic Pollutants”. EPA published some updates to

criteria in 1996, and that included revisions so that some of EPA’s recommended metals

criteria is now less stringent than Maryland’s criteria. Because of these revisions, we

recommend that starting with the third paragraph, the following changes be made: “The

net effect is that the numeric levels set by Maryland may be less stringent than the levels

currently recommended by EPA. Consequently, the State’s standards may allow more

pollution...”

Page 18, Maryland Summary. In the last sentence, we recommend that “Notices of

Deficiency” be presented in lower case.

Page 18, Delaware. As written, this section is not entirely accurate. We recommend this

section be rewritten as follows: “In 1993, EPA identified a number of deficiencies with

Delaware’s water quality standards program. After five years of discussion between the

State and the Region, many of the deficiencies still remain unresolved. In April 1998, the

Region finally sent a letter to the State disapproving 4 provisions of the standards, and

identifying a number of provisions that the Region intends to recommend that the EPA

Administrator find deficient, and promulgate replacement standards should the State not

make the recommended corrections.”

Page 19, West Virginia. We believe this section misrepresents our letters to the State,

especially the use of definitive numbers of “problems”. In response to the West Virginia

Water Quality Standards Triennial Review submitted October 12, 1993, EPA identified 4

sections of the West Virginia standards which were being disapproved due to

inconsistencies with Federal regulations. In addition, 4 sections were conditionally

approved and 4 recommendations were made to allow the state to further clarify the

intention of these sections. Recommendations made to the state are in no way considered

deficiencies but are comments meant to assist the state in providing further clarification

and consistency.

West Virginia submitted its next Triennial Review package on August 11, 1995. In our review,

EPA was able to fully remove 2 of the 4 disapproved sections from 1993. Of the 
remaining two issues, we were able to partially remove the disapprovals (e.g., the state had

adopted variance, site-specific criteria and use removal policies, but the variances and sitespecific criteria that existed in the standards regulation needed to be reviewed in order to assess

whether these provisions met the requirements of the new policies). 

We are currently reviewing the State’s 1998 Triennial Review submission, and at this point it is

premature to indicate what provisions will be found deficient. West Virginia did correct a

number of issues that we have brought to its attention in our letters. In addition, we are

unaware of what two deficiencies remain from 1993. We assume that one is Antidegradation,

but we did conditionally approve the State’s Antidegradation policy in 1995, approval being

conditional upon submittal of an implementation procedure.

Page 20, Region III Position. There is one position that we believe was proffered during

interviews that is not reflected in this section. We suggest that the following be added:

“The Regions and Headquarters lack the resources, both in terms of personnel and

funding, necessary to undertake a promulgation when the state does not make the required

changes.”

Page 20, Conclusion. In the last sentence, we recommend that “Notices of Deficiency” be

changed to lower case.

Page 20, Recommendations. In Recommendation 3.1, we recommend that “Notices of

Deficiency” be changed to lower case. Recommendation 3.2 is technically incorrect. The

Clean Water Act only requires that disapprovals be corrected within 90 days. There is no

time limit for corrections of identified deficiencies that are not disapprovals.

Chapter 4 

Page 21, Triennial Reviews Chart. Two dates need to be updated in this chart. West

Virginia submitted a triennial review package in July 1998. Virginia submitted a package

in August 1998.

Page 23, District of Columbia. The District has informed us that the final triennial review

package will not be submitted until at least Fall 1999.

Page 23, Pennsylvania. It would be more correct to say that Pennsylvania personnel was

otherwise occupied working on the Commonwealth’s Regulatory Basics Initiative (RBI),

which constitutes major revisions to its environmental regulations, including the water

quality standards regulation. The modifications to the water quality standards regulation

are intended to constitute a triennial review.
Page 24, Recommendation 4.1. We believe it would be more appropriate to state that the

Administrator initiate a 303(c)(4)(B) action. By specifying initiation of a triennial review,

we neglect other options such a simply recommending that the Administrator make a

finding of deficiency and promulgate appropriate standards.

Chapter 5

Page 25, Summary of State Compliance Table, Water Quality Management Plan. The

report lists none of the States have Water Quality Management Plans. We strongly

disagree with this statement. The State’s Water Quality Management Plan does prioritize

water quality problems, consider solutions, and recommends remedies; however, we do

not believe that it is embodied in a single document, but rather an overall process which

includes many different components. In fact, all States have recently completed Unified

Watershed Assessments as part of the Clean Water Action Plan to establish priorities in

cooperation with a broad range of State and Federal agencies. 

Page 25, Summary of State Compliance Table. On July 13, 1998, Maryland provided

public notice of its intent to revise its CPP and invited public comment. As part of the

Memorandum of Understanding between MDE and EPA Region III regarding Sections

303(d) and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act, MDE agreed to update its CPP and transmit it

to EPA on or before October 1, 1999. 

Page 27, Quality Assurance. Under Management Plans , it should be noted that prior to

FY ‘97, Quality Assurance Management Plans were entitled Quality Assurance Program

Plans (QAPPs), which all the states submitted back in the mid 1980's. These QAPPs

were approved by the Region III Environmental Services Division (ESD) at that time. 

Sometime in the early 1990s, ESD disinvested in this review and stated that it was now

the Project Officer’s responsibility to review Quality Assurance Program/Project Plans

(QAPjPs). Project Officers in all EPA programs were in the same situation and were not

provided with any training by ESD to carry out this task. Also, it was never brought to

anyone’s attention that the Program Plans expired after a certain amount of time.

All of the States were represented at the Quality Assurance Management Plan training in April

of 1998. Several of the States have committed to send in their Quality Assurance Management

Plans to Diann Sims in our ESD Annapolis Office for review by mid-December. Also, she is

planning to train the EPA Project Officers sometime in the spring on how to review a Quality

Assurance Project Plan. After training of the Project Officer’s is complete, she then plans to go

back to the States and train them on the same review. 
It is an inaccurate statement that the Region has been unwilling to enforce the States’

responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and Federal Regulations because it considered these

documents to be a low priority. Up until FY ‘98, most of the states have been sending in

Quality Assurance Project Plans to EPA for review. The Water Protection Division has been

working with Diann Sims and the Regional Quality Assurance Council since October, 1997 to

complete the above-mentioned tasks and correct the deficiencies listed in the audit report.
74

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-XXXXXXX

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

SUBJECT: Draft Report of Audit on Region III Water Quality 

Standards, Monitoring and Reporting

12/17/98

FROM: Stanley L. Laskowski, Director 

Environmental Services Division (3ES00)

TO: Robert G. Reed, Jr., Chief

Grants and Audit Management Branch (3PM70)

This is in response to the request from the Office of the Inspector General for comments on

their draft Report of Audit on Region III Water Quality Standards, Monitoring and Reporting

(Audit Report). In general, we agree with the recommendations to the Regional Administrator

specified in the Audit Report. However, there did appear to be a few points which could use

some clarification.

One example is Recommendation 2.1, ”Delete the option that allows States to use fecal

coliform as a criteria for reporting bacteria impairments.” If a State has a fecal coliform standard

already in place, it would be difficult to justify and probably legally indefensible to base

impairment decisions for both S. 303d and 305b on a different, unadopted criterion. The State

should be able to use its fecal coliform standard until a new indicator is adopted. However, every

effort should be made to get the States to update their bacteriological standards.

There also seems to be a misinterpretation on page 10 of the Audit Report. Specifically,

Delaware is reported as having assessed 651 miles, with 84 miles impaired by bacteria. The 1996

S. 305b report from Delaware actually shows 801 miles of streams assessed, with 548 miles, or

68%, impaired by bacteria. I believe the reference specified in the Audit Report is the impairment

of aquatic life support and not primary recreation. 

Other issues involve Chapter 5 which discusses planning documents not prepared or updated. It

should be noted that monitoring strategies were requested as part of the S. 106 grant guidance

and not required (as specified on page 27), although several grants were conditioned to provide a

monitoring strategy. Maryland’s S.106 grant was conditioned to provide a monitoring strategy,

and we are currently working through the Performance Partnership Grant Program to induce

Maryland to provide a strategy document. A monitoring strategy was never requested from

Delaware due to the fact that they already assessed all of their waters, thereby alleviating the need

for a comprehensive strategy. Virginia has just recently submitted a new draft monitoring

strategy, and we are currently working with West Virginia to update their Watershed Assessment

Program to include a more detailed monitoring strategy. The Summary of State Compliance

Table in Chapter 5 also shows the status of submitted Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP). 

Contrary to the information shown in the table, however, QAPP’s were
submitted by Delaware in 1991 and Virginia in 1992. This table, as well as the first sentence on

page 28, "Delaware and Virginia did not submit Quality Assurance Project Plans," should be

revised to correspond to the current status.

Overall, we agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the Audit Report. We are

continuing to work on the short-comings identified.
77

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-XXXXXXX

Maryland Response to Draft Report
78

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-XXXXXXX

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Parris N. Glendening Jane T.

Nishida

Governor 

Secretary

January 29, 1999

Mr. Carl A. Jannetti

Divisional Inspector General for Audit

USEPA

Office of the Inspector General

Mid-Atlantic Division

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Jannetti:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Report of Audit on Region III Water

Quality Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting (EIHWF7-03-0160). Our detailed comments and

concerns regarding the audit report are enclosed.

Many issues raised in the audit findings are being addressed as part of Maryland's current

Triennial Review and other on-going regulatory processes. Other issues raised in the audit

findings are based on incomplete information or incorrect interpretations of the information

provided to the auditors and clarification is offered here.

The enclosed response to the draft audit report was developed in coordination with the

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and represents the combined comments of

both agencies.

We hope that this letter and the enclosed detailed responses will be incorporated in the audit

report and forwarded with the finding of the OIG to Region III. If you have any questions about

our comments or plans, please call me at 410-631-3680 or Richard

Eskin, of my staff at 410-631-3691.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Haire, Director

Technical and Regulatory Services Administration

Enclosures

cc: Jane Nishida, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment

 Robert Hoyt, Assistant Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment

 J.L. Hearn, Director, Water Management Administration

 Paul Massicott, Director, Resource Assessment Service, DNR

 Richard Eskin, Program Manager, Technical & Regulatory Services

Administration, MDE

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

2500 Broening Highway é Baltimore Maryland 21224

(410)631-3000 é 1-800-633-6101 é http://www.mde.state.md.us

TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

via Maryland Relay Service

 v

“Together We Can Clean Up” Recycled Paper
Response by the Maryland Department of the Environment to the Draft Report of Audit

on

Region III Water Quality Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting

Audit Report Number EIHWF7-03-0160

Chapter: Bacteria in Water Not Assessed or Reported

There were several findings in this section related to adoption of EPA recommended criteria for

bathing beaches, proper in implementation and interpretation of standards, differences between

the Water Quality Inventory Report (the Report) and the List of Impaired Waters (the List), and

whether waters with data not adequate to apply the standard should be listed as impaired. The

section closed with recommendation to modify the standards or the current implementation and to

revise the list.

Most of these issues have been addressed by better coordination and communication between

MDE and DNR in the development of the Report and List, or are being addressed through the

Triennial Review. We agree that the bacteriological criterion needs to be revised and that

monitoring for bacteria needs to be modified to better implement the standard. We disagree with

the assertion that Maryland's standards are less protective than those recommended by EPA and

with the finding that additional waters should be added to the List of Impaired Waters.

Finding: Maryland did not adopt the federal bacteriological criteria.

Response: Maryland does not agree with the auditors' statement that Maryland's standard is less

protective than the EPA recommended criteria. Only a few states have adopted EPA's 1986,

Ambient Water Criteria for Bacteria, while the rest continue to use a fecal coliform standard,

similar to Maryland's.

First it is important to note that EPA did not intend that the recommended criteria using the

enterococcus and E. coli indicators be implemented in shellfish harvesting waters. EPA states

"With the exception of shellfish harvesting waters which must relate to shellfish sanitation

guidelines and FDA marketplace requirements, EPA believes that all other waters that are

classified for primary contact could benefit from the application of the revised criteria" (Fed. Reg,

Vol. 51 No. 45 p. 8013). Consequently, the areas in Maryland where this recommended criteria

might be applicable are those waters designed as Use I, III, or IV waters. We are looking at the

appropriateness of adopting such criteria for those waters during the current triennial review. The

FDA requires that all states which deal in interstate commerce of shellfish use the fecal coliform

standard that Maryland currently has in its regulations.

Furthermore, the beaches at which EPA conducted its Studies to develop the enterococcus, and

E. coli indicators recommended in the 1986 report were subject to raw sewage from a plant

serving a population of 100,000 people. Similar situations do not occur anywhere in Maryland

since at least secondary and nearly always tertiary treatment has been implemented at Maryland

plants. Given Maryland’s record with the absence of bathing beach illness and the fact that the

enterococcus and E. coli indicators have not been widely adopted by other states, it is not clear

that the public health would be better protected by using these new indicators.
Maryland's current fecal coliform standard and EPA's 1986 criteria both utilize nonpathogenic

organisms consistently present in the feces of all warm-blooded animals. As surrogates of

pathogenic organisms, use of either indicator has similar limitations. Maryland has emphasized

prevention as the most critical component to protect public health. The sanitary survey

component of Maryland's regulations is designed to prevent and abate pollution sources of human

health significance. In addition, the OIG auditors may not have understood that, in addition to

sanitary surveys conducted by this Department for shellfish, local governments have delegated

authority for bathing beaches and monitor for fecal coliform and conduct sanitary surveys when

elevated counts are observed. In addition, sanitary surveys are conducted, generally by local

health departments, to evaluate the presence of failing septic systems and the need for sewer

hookups.

However, through the Triennial Review, Maryland will explore the feasibility of adopting a fecal

coliform standard using the enterococcus and E. coli indicators in primary contact waters. MDE

will discuss this issue with the County Environmental Health Directors since the counties have

delegated authority for permitting beaches. MDE will use their input and experience to determine

whether to implement these standards.

Finding: Maryland did not properly implement its own standards, or follow EPA guidance

when assessing and reporting impaired water bodies.

Response: Maryland has consistently applied its current interpretation of the bacterial water

quality regulations for many years, with the approval of EPA. Given Maryland's excellent public

health record related to both bathing beaches and shellfish, this program has been protective.

Nevertheless, based on comments received from EPA in its review of the 1998 List of Impaired

Waters, MDE has agreed with EPA that a review of the bacterial contarnination regulations and

bacterial sampling protocols is warranted and will be pursued in the ongoing Triennial Review

process.

Maryland's fecal coliform standard is composed of both a numerical measurement and a sanitary

survey. The numerical measurement is determined by estimating the Most Probable Number

(MPN) of fecal coliform. The MPN is not a direct count, but is a statistical estimation subject to a

high degree of variability. The water quality standard requires a minimum of five samples taken

during a 30-day period in order to account for the inherent variability of the indicator. In addition,

the regulations include a provision whereby a sanitary survey that confirms the absence of a

source of human pathogens can be used to supercede fecal coliform measurements. Given the

inherent variability of the fecal coliform indicator, Maryland has historically relied on both sanitary

surveys and fecal coliform measurements for decisions on closing the water for primary contact

uses. If the closure is related to a technical problem (e.g. failing septic systems, cracked sewer

line), steps are taken to correct the problem. If however, the technology-based limitations cannot

correct the violation of the bacteriological standard, this closed water segment is then determined

to be impaired and added to the State's 303(d) list. As noted above, although this Department

does not do statewide sanitary surveys, except for shorelines, local health Departments do

conduct the surveys, both for enforcement of bathing beach standards and to survey needs with

respect to septic systems.
It is unclear to what the OIG is referring in reference to the statement that Maryland "[did not]

follow EPA guidance when assessing and reporting water bodies." If this statement refers to the 

use of the fecal coliform standard, as noted above, Maryland, and most other states have not

adopted EPA guidance related to their choice of indicator organisms. If the OIG means that

Maryland disagreed with the Region's interpretation of the data, that is correct. This issue is

explained more fully below.

Finding: Two state agencies use different interpretations of the State's criteria to

determine if water bodies are impaired. However, neither interpretation implements the

State's criteria as written. As a result Maryland did not report 62 water bodies that had

elevated bacteria levels on its Assessment Report or 185 bodies that had elevated bacteria

levels on its Impaired list.

Response: MDE is responsible for the submission of Maryland's official List of Impaired Waters

that is submitted to EPA as required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, following a

thorough public review procedure. Although MDE consults with DNR in the development of the

list, MDE is the delegated agency in defining water quality limited segments (i.e., impairments) for

Maryland. In the past, there has been some inconsistency between the agencies' interpretation of

the criteria in developing the Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment report and the 303(d)

List. We are currently addressing the issue so that it will not be a problem in the future.

There also seems to be some confusion in the OIG report with regard to bacteriological standards.

The audit excerpt cites the criterion for the contact recreation use (COMAR §26.08.02.03-3A(l))

and then goes on to discuss DNR's interpretation for "permitted beaches" which is addressed

separately in COMAR (§26.08.09.06). The excerpt then describes the process used by approving

authorities to interpret the State's water contact criterion for permitted bathing areas. The

approach taken by EPA OIG is incorrect in that it confuses two different standards. In most cases

the approving authorities for bathing beaches are the County Health Departments, which do both

the sampling and the sanitary surveys before opening beaches. Beaches are closed if they are

impaired based upon the standard found at COMAR §26.08.09.06.

Finding: The Region notifed Maryland of 185 water bodies contaminated for bacterial

contamination. When Maryland asserted that there was insufficient data for these water

bodies to be added to the list, the Region acquiesced with the State's promise to do

additional testing.

Response: MDE and the Region discussed this issue extensively. We went through the Region's

concerns on a case-by-case basis and provided a decision rationale or justification in each and

every case (enclosure). MDE conceded locations where the case could be made that an

impairment exists and added these waters to the 1998 303(d) list. The Region conceded locations

where the case for an actual impairment was not supportable. This was a positive decision that has

lead to improvements in Maryland's program, completely protected public health, yet did not

inappropriately list water body segments as impaired if they were not. Consequently, given the

thorough analysis provided, we strongly disagree with the conclusion that additional waters

should be added at this time.
1

“PCB” in Maryland regulations applies to each of the seven PCB priority pollutants.

Chapter: Deficient Standards Were Not Corrected

Finding. Deficiencies in Maryland's water quality standards-Missing criteria for toxic

pollutants. According to PCS there are 62 toxic pollutants listed in Section 307(a) that are

discharged, or are present in State waters and can reasonably be expected to interfere with

designated uses for which dischargers are required to test, but Maryland has numeric

criteria for only 20 of those pollutants.

Response:

Maryland has evaluated the list of substances provided by the OIG. Of the 62 substances alluded

to by the OlG, Maryland has water quality standards for 24 substances. For those substances for

which Maryland has not adopted water quality standards, MDE generally employs EPA's

recommended criteria in their decision making process. For a few facilities, MDE uses its best

professional judgement for those substances for which no Maryland water quality standard or

EPA recommended criteria exist. For such substances, MDE will generally evaluate the need to

develop criteria in accordance with environmental and public health needs and the requirements of

the Clean Water Act.

Furthermore, the OIG may have misinterpreted Section 307(a) for the following reasons;

1. Just because a permit requires monitoring for a pollutant, it does not mean the pollutant is

always present. Sometimes we require monitoring by a permittee to verify that a particular

pollutant is not present.

2. If the pollutant is present in an individual facility's discharge, the law does not automatically

require the adoption of a criterion. Federal regulations are specific that such action must take

place only if priority pollutant toxics are adversely affecting water quality or if they are present

at a level, to warrant concern (CFR 131.11(a)(2)). Professional judgement must be applied to

make that determination and confirmed by monitoring.

3. If a pollutant is limited in a permit, it does not mean it is a concern to water quality in

Maryland waters. It may be a technology-based limit required under federal guidelines for that

industry even if the pollutant is not known to be present in the permittee's wastewater or

Maryland waters.

4. EPA has criteria for 99 priority pollutant toxic substances. Only 30 of these include aquatic

life criteria. Maryland has criteria for 24 of these 30 substances.1 The remaining six are

pesticides that are not in our permitted discharges based on long-term experience with our

dischargers.
5. Sixty-nine of the 99 substances have criteria only for human health (drinking water and fish

consumption). Almost all of these are for organic substances. While Maryland has been very

conservative by adopting criteria for most of the priority pollutants with aquatic life criteria,

we have not found evidence indicating a need to adopt as many for the organic pollutants

based upon human health concerns. Maryland's water quality monitoring experience indicates

organics are usually at nondetectable levels. Even if an organic is detected in a water sample,

human health criteria involve less stringent averaging periods than the aquatic life criteria (an

annual average for human health criteria versus a four-day average for chronic aquatic life

criteria, for example).

Finding: Deficiencies in Maryland's water quality standards-Maryland's numeric criteria

for 15 metals are set at incorrect levels (the State set criteria at numeric Levels that EPA

recommended for "total recoverable" but adopted these as "dissolved") that are less

stringent than the levels recommended by EPA.

EPA Region III approved Maryland's water quality standards it 1990. Then, EPA published in the

Federal Register an "interim final rule, notice of data availability and request for comments" in

May 1995. EPA published the most recent final guidance on metal conversion factors in

December 1998.

Consequently, the use of the conversion factors, and subsequent change (if any) of Maryland's

water quality standard is being currently addressed as part of Maryland's current Triennial Review

and will then undergo the scrutiny of the public participation process. Given these facts, we

believe that the OIG’s conclusion that Maryland is deficient is premature and does not take into

consideration the regulatory process, which is required under the Clean Water Act.

Finding: Maryland does not have an Antidegradation policy including an ONRW.

Response: MDE will address the designation of Outstanding National Resource Water during its

current Triennial Review with EPA and full public participation.

Finding: Maryland Lacks Designated Uses for wetlands and estuaries.

Response: The audit findings are incorrect that there is a lack of designated uses for wetlands

and estuaries. Both are waters of the State and as such are protected for Use I. COMAR

§26.08.01.02A(103) describes "Waters of this State" to include the Chesapeake Bay (which is,

estuarine) and tidal and nontidal wetlands.

“Fress Water, Estuarine, and Salt Water Boundaries" are established in 26.08.02.03-IB. Uses are

generally assigned in COMAR §26.08.02.07A: "All surface waters of this State shall be protected

for Use I, which includes water contact recreation, fishing and protection of aquatic life and

wildlife. Therefore, Use I is explicitly designated for both tidal and nontidal wetlands, and since

the Chesapeake Bay is largely estuarine, to estuarine waters as well.

Uses are specifically and explicitly assigned in COMAR §26.08.02.08 for example:

§26.08.02.08B sub-basin 02-13-01; Coastal Area (2) Use II: All

portions of the territorial seas and estuarine portions of bays and

tributaries except... (emphasis added)
In summary, the designated use for wetlands is Use I and for estuaries is Use II (shellfish

harvesting) and Use I. In addition we will evaluate the need to refine these uses during the

current Triennial Review.

Chapter: Missed opportunities

Finding: Maryland is five years late in carrying out Its 1993 Triennial Review of Water

Quality Standards.

Response: Due to the litigation that developed challenging the legality of the regulations adopted

during the last Triennial Review and the subsequent revisions to water quality regulations, the

schedule was disrupted with EPA's full knowledge. We anticipate that future Triennial Reviews

will be, held in a timely manner. Maryland has initiated its current triennial review in rcsponse to 

a request from Region III. Hearings for the public involvement component began in mid-January,

and a review in response to Region III's specific concerns is well underway.

Chapter: Planning Documents Not Prepared or Updated

Finding: Continuing Planning Process documents (CPP, Water Quality Management Plan,

Monitoring Strategy and Quality Assurance) have not been prepared or maintained.

Response: CPP has been adopted in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

MDE provided public notice on July 13, 1998 that the CPP is being revised with public

participation. We anticipate that such revisions and review of the CPP will occur periodically in

future years.

MDE will perform chemical and physical monitoring in accordance with the Cycling Strategy.

Numerous monitoring plans exist and incorporate QA/QC protocols. Past 305(b) Reports have

described the monitoring programs that produced the data used. There are well documented

monitoring plans for the Chesapeake Bay and many tributaries. Detailed monitoring plans are

available for the Lower Delmarva Peninsula and the Upper Bay as part of the Watershed Cycling

Strategy. Plans for the remaining parts of the State will be developed as the Watershed Cycling

Strategy moves on to those areas.

DNR has been working to update the State's Water Quality Monitoring Strategy to incorporate

the latest information about the State's diverse monitoring approach. Continuing and substantial

change's in these programs have occurred recently and need to be addressed, including the

transfer of monitoring programs between State agencies, the addition of regional TMDL- based

monitoring and new Pfiesteria monitoring efforts as well as the proposed National Estuary

program monitoring program. While each water quality monitoring effort has unique goals, 

MDE and DNR have had formal meetings to coordinate our respective monitoring efforts and

Quality Assurance plans.
Suspected Substance: Fecal Coliform

Notes: (1)Restricted as precautionary measure and not due to poor water quality data. These

are areas downstream from a Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) that meet all water

quality requirements. These areas, however, are restricted to shellfish harvesting because

of the potential for treatment system failure. While water quality in these areas support

the designated use, the Food and Drug Administration requires as a precautionary

measure. They are not indicative of a violation of the water quality standards. These areas

are monitored by MDE and meet the water quality standard for fecal coliform. If

monitoring and compliance data indicate that the plant is not functioning properly,

corrective actions would be immediately initiated. Since no impairment exists, the

development of a TMDL is not necessary under these circumstances.

(2) Not listed because there is insufficient data to determine a violation of water quality

standards is the same logic as listed above for Table 1.

Watershed Water Body Segment Justification for listing or not listing

02120101 Atlantic Ocean Not listed. Restricted as precautionary measure and

not due to poor water quality data (WWTP).

02120201 Lower Susquehanna River Not listed because there is insufficient data to

determine a violation of water quality standards.

02120202 Deer Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130206 Tangier Sound Not listed. Restricted as precautionary measure and

not due to poor water quality data (WWTP).

02130207 Big Annemessex River Not listed. Restricted as precautionary measure and

not due to poor water quality data (WWTP).

02130303 Wicomico Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130305 Nanticoke River Added to MD 1998 303 (d) list.

02130308 Transquaking River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130404 Choptank Marine Beach Added to 1998 303(d) list.

02130404 Lake Bonnie, Choptank

Swim closure is though to be due to sewage discharge

from WWTP and therefore should not apear on 1998

303(d) list.

02130405 Tuckahoe Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130503 Wye River Already on 1996 303(d) list.

02130601 Lower Elk River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130603 Upper Elk River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130604 Back Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130606 Big Elk Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130610 Sassafras River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130701 Bush River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.
Watershed Water Body Segment Justification for listing or not listing

02130702 Lower Winters Run (Bush River) Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130703 Atkisson Reservoir Drainage Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130704 Bynum Run Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130706 Swan Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130705 Aberdeen Proving Grounds Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130802 Lower Gunpowder Falls Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir Drainage Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130806 Prettyboy Reservoir Drainage Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130901 Back River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130902 Bodkin Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130903 Patapsco River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130903 Marley/Rock/Furnace Creeks Added to 1998 303(d) list.

02130904 Jones Falls (above Lake Roland) Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130905 Gwynns Falls Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130906 Mainstem/Lower North Branch

Patapsco River

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02130907 Liberty Reservoir Drainage

Cascade Lake

Not listed. Latest data show no violations.

02130908 S. Branch Patapsco Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02131005 West Chesapeake Bay Added to 1998 303(d) list.

02131101 Lower Patuxent River Added to 1998 303(d) list.

02131102 Patuxent Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02131102 Patuxent River above Ferry

Landing

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02131103 Patuxent River Western Branch Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02131104 Patuxent Mainstem-Rt. 214 to

Rocky Gorge

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02131105 Little Patuxent River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02131108 Triadelphia Reservoir Drainage Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.
Watershed Water Body Segment Justification for listing or not listing

02139997 Middle Chesapeake Bay Not listed. Restricted as precautionary measure and

not due to poor water quality data (WWTP).

02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay Not listed. Restricted as precautionary measure and

not due to poor water quality data (WWTP).

02140101 Potomac River - mouth to Smith

Point

Not listed. Shellfish harvesting area approved.

02140102 Potomac-Marshall Hall to Smith

Pt.

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140107 Gilbert Swamp Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140108 Zekiah Swamp Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140109 Port Tabacco River Not listed. Shellfish harvesting area approved.

02140110 Nanjemoy Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140111 Mattawoman Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140201 Potomac - Marshall Hall to Chain

Bridge

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140202 Potomac - Monacacy River to

Chain Bridge

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140203 Piscataway Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140205 Potomac R., Anacostia Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140206 Rock Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140207 Cabin John Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140208 Seneca Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140301 Potomac River - Shenandoah to

Monocacy

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140302 Lower Monocacy River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140303 Upper Monocacy River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140304 Double Pipe Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140305 Catoctin Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140501 Potomac River - hancock to

Shenandoah River

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140502 Antietam Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140504 Conococheague Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02140508 Potomac River - N Branch

Potomac to Hancock

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02141001 Lower North Branch Potomac

River

Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.
Watershed Water Body Segment Justification for listing or not listing

02141003 Wills Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

02141004 Georges Creek Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

05020202 Little Youghiogheny River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.

05020204 Casselman River Not listed. There is insufficient data to determine a

violation of water quality standards.
90

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-XXXXXXX

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
91

Report No. E1HWF7-03-0160-XXXXXXX

APPENDIX B

 DISTRIBUTION

Headquarters

Office of Inspector General - Headquarters (2421)

Assistant Administrator for Water (4101) 

EPA Library (3404)

EPA Region III

Regional Administrator (3RA00)

Director, Water Protection Division (3WP00)

Director, Environmental Services Division (3ES00)

Chief, Office of Watersheds (3WP10)

Chief, Office of Ecological Assessment and Management (3ES10)

Regional Library (3PM50)

Other

Office of Inspector General - Divisional Offices

General Accounting Office