U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Compendium of 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

as of September 30, 2008 

Report No. 09-P-0014 

October 31, 2008 
 

Abbreviations 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CPAF Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System 

IGEMS Inspector General Enterprise Management System 

MATS Management Audit Tracking System 

NCC National Computer Center 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NSQS National Sediment Quality Survey 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEI Office of Environmental Information 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation 

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs 

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OTOP Office of Technology Operations and Planning 

OW Office of Water 

PCS Permit Compliance System 

RMDS Resource Management and Directives System 

SA Superfund Alternative 

SP Special Publication 
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

October 31, 2008 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

Report No. 09-P-0014 

TO: Deputy Administrator 

Assistant Administrators 

Regional Administrators 

Office of General Counsel 

Chief Financial Officer 

Associate Administrators 

Attached is the first Semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations prepared by 

the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

This Compendium fulfills a requirement of the Inspector General Act (as amended) that the OIG 

Semiannual Report to Congress identify reports containing significant recommendations 

described in previous Semiannual Reports on which corrective action has not been completed. 

This Compendium, as a separate document addressed to EPA leadership, is part of the OIG’s 

follow-up strategy to promote robust internal controls. Follow-up is done in collaboration with 

the EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Agency Follow-up Coordinators. The goal is 

to improve overall audit management by helping EPA managers gain a greater awareness of 

outstanding agreed-to commitments for action on OIG report recommendations. Implementing 

these recommendations will correct weaknesses, reduce vulnerabilities to risk, and leverage 

opportunities for improved performance. 

We are encouraged by the increasing level of interest and involvement of the Agency Audit 

Follow-up Coordinators and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer in this Compendium and 

the audit follow-up process. We have already seen measurable improvements in the awareness 

of, accountability for, and action on OIG recommendations. 

The unimplemented recommendations listed in this Compendium were selected by criteria of 

significance and being identified as unimplemented in EPA’s Management Audit Tracking 

System or, in some cases, through review by the OIG. Exclusion from the Compendium does 

not indicate the OIG’s validation that a recommendation has been completed. However, it is a 
goal of the OIG, through other reviews, to verify the reported completeness of as many 

significant recommendations as possible. 

According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, audit follow-up is a shared 

responsibility between the Agency and the OIG. We will continue to identify unimplemented 

recommendations for attention and action, as well as remove the listing of recommendations as 

unimplemented when appropriate information of completion is provided. We hope that you find 

this to be a useful tool in identifying ways to further improve Agency operations. 

 Bill A. Roderick 

 Deputy Inspector General 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Table of Contents 

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 

Unimplemented Recommendations..................................................................... 4 

OIG Report Number 

08-P-0093 ............................................................................................................ 4 

08-1-0032............................................................................................................. 6 

2007-P-00035 ...................................................................................................... 7 

2007-P-00028 ...................................................................................................... 8 

2007-P-00026 ...................................................................................................... 9 

2007-P-00025 ...................................................................................................... 11 

2007-P-00013 ...................................................................................................... 12 

2007-P-00008 ...................................................................................................... 13 

2007-P-00007 ...................................................................................................... 15 

2006-P-00038 ...................................................................................................... 16 

2006-P-00027 ...................................................................................................... 17 

2006-P-00016 ...................................................................................................... 19 

2006-P-00013 ...................................................................................................... 21 

2006-P-00009 ...................................................................................................... 23 

2006-P-00001 ...................................................................................................... 25 

2005-P-00024 ...................................................................................................... 26 

2005-P-00010 ...................................................................................................... 27 

2004-P-00030 ...................................................................................................... 29 

2003-P-00012 ...................................................................................................... 31 

2001-P-00013 ...................................................................................................... 32 

Appendix A: OIG Reports with Unimplemented 

Recommendations by Program Office ..................................... 34 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Introduction 

Purpose 

The purpose of this Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations is to highlight for 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) management significant recommendations that 

have remained unimplemented past the due date agreed upon by EPA and the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG). In addition, the Compendium satisfies part of Section 5(a) of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, which requires each Inspector General to issue semiannual 

reports to Congress and include “an identification of each significant recommendation described 

in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed.” This 

Compendium is being issued as a supplement to the OIG’s Semiannual Report to Congress for 

the reporting period of April 1, 2008, through September 30, 2008. The OIG intends to issue this 

Compendium in each subsequent semiannual reporting period to keep Agency management 

informed about EPA’s outstanding commitments and progress in taking agreed upon actions on 

OIG recommendations to improve programs and operations. 

Background 

Recommendations are issued by EPA’s OIG to improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, 

or integrity of EPA programs and operations. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A-50, Audit Followup, affirms that corrective action taken by management on resolved 

findings and recommendations is essential to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 

government operations and that audit follow-up is a shared responsibility of agency management 

officials and auditors. 

OMB Circular A-50 requires each agency to establish systems to ensure the prompt and proper 

resolution and implementation of audit recommendations. EPA Order 2750, based on OMB 

Circular A-50, details EPA’s policy and procedures on audit follow-up. The Chief Financial 

Officer is the Agency Audit Follow-up Official and has responsibility for Agency-wide audit 

resolution and ensuring Action Officials implement corrective actions. EPA uses the 

Management Audit Tracking System (MATS) to track information on Agency implementation of 

OIG recommendations. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer maintains and operates 

MATS. MATS receives report data, such as the report title and issue date, from the Inspector 

General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS). 

The Audit Management Official in the Office of the Administrator, the Office of General 

Counsel, and each Assistant Administrator’s or Regional Administrator’s office, designates an 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator for that office. Audit Follow-up Coordinators are responsible for 

quality assurance and analysis of tracking system data. When corrective actions in response to 

recommendations in an audit report are complete and certified, the Agency may inactivate that 

report’s MATS file and it must no longer be tracked by the Audit Follow-up Coordinator. In 

general, the Agency self certifies that corrective actions are complete without third party postcertification review. The Agency is also responsible under the Inspector General Act for 

1 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

reporting on audit reports for which final corrective action has not been taken 1 year or more 

after the Agency’s management decision on corrective actions to be taken in response to findings 

and recommendations. 

On December 7, 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked the 

OIG to send the Oversight Committee a description of unimplemented recommendations in OIG 

reports issued to EPA from January 2001 to December 2007, including specific information on 

each recommendation. 

The OIG provided the requested information on unimplemented recommendations to the 

Oversight Committee on February 29, 2008. Additionally, the OIG issued a report to the Agency 

on March 31, 2008 (Report No. 08-P-0123, http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/20080331-08-

P-0123-rv.pdf) comprising the information provided to the Committee. This Compendium of 

Unimplemented Recommendations is an updated and expanded version of the previous reports 

issued to the Oversight Committee and the Agency. 

Scope and Methodology 

Due to our limited scope and purpose, we did not conduct our work in accordance with all 

generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. Specifically, we did not evaluate management controls, determine compliance 

with laws and regulations, or develop findings and recommendations. Further, we did not 

thoroughly assess the validity and reliability of data obtained from the Agency’s MATS, which 

is used by EPA to track audit follow-up information. Although MATS was our primary source 

for identifying unimplemented recommendations, we did perform additional steps to search for 

unimplemented recommendations that may not have been identified in MATS. 

We reviewed selected audit and evaluation reports issued by the EPA OIG from October 1, 1997, 

through March 31, 2008, to identify significant unimplemented recommendations for inclusion in 

the Compendium. However, we did not identify any significant unimplemented recommendations 

from Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000. We did not review recommendations from reports 

without an OIG agreement on the Agency’s corrective action plan (Management Decision). 

A list of these reports can be found in Appendix 2 of the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress. 

We excluded recommendations with future milestone dates for action. Some unimplemented 

recommendations that were excluded from this Compendium may, upon further review, be 

included in the next Compendium. A recommendation’s exclusion from the Compendium does 

not indicate our determination that the recommendation has been implemented. We limited the 

unimplemented recommendations to those we believe are significant because they could have a 

material impact on the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, or integrity of EPA programs and 

operations. For this purpose, we define the following terms: 

•	 Economy: Opportunity to save, prevent loss, or recover at least $500,000 in monetary 

costs or value. 

•	 Efficiency: Improvement in the process, capacity, accessibility, or delivery of program 

objectives and the elimination of unnecessary or unproductive actions or expenses. 

2 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

•	 Effectiveness: Improvement in the quality of, or reduction in the risk to, public health 

and the environment. 

•	 Integrity: Improvement in operational accountability, enforcement of and compliance 

with laws and regulations, and security of resources for public confidence. 

The Compendium includes 20 reports and lists 40 unimplemented recommendations. The 

following EPA offices have unimplemented recommendations listed in this Compendium: 

Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

Office of Environmental Information (OEI) 

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

Office of Water (OW)
 

We anticipate that the Agency will provide updates in MATS on the status of each 

unimplemented recommendation, including a description of progress and an explanation of the 

delay in completing an agreed-to action. 

3 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Action Office: OARM 

Report Title: EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts 

Report No.: 08-P-0093 Date Issued: 02/26/2008 

Report Summary 

While EPA has paid contractors nearly $16 million in award fees over the past 10 years on the 

nine contracts reviewed, it has no assurance that the use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) 

contracts facilitates a higher level of performance than other types of contracts. EPA CPAF 

contracts generally contain performance indicators tied to the Agency’s mission. EPA 

consistently provided contractors with high ratings and award fees. However, we could not 

determine if EPA properly awarded fees because it did not sufficiently document the basis for 

the ratings. Because EPA consistently provided high ratings, we believe award fees are more of 

an expectation for contractors rather than a factor that motivates excellence. The report was 

issued to OARM and Region 5. However, Region 5 has no past-due corrective actions recorded 

in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM revise the 

Contracts Management Manual to require that: 

• a cost-benefit analysis be conducted prior to awarding a CPAF contract, and 

• all CPAF contracts be approved by the contracting officer's Service Center Manager. 

Status: OARM concurred that some form of a cost-benefit analysis should be done prior 

to awarding a CPAF contract. OARM reported it is in the process of revising the 

Contracts Management Manual, Chapter 16.1, Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts, to 

require that each contract file include documentation to show why the particular contract 

type was selected. In the event a Contracting Officer considers awarding a CPAF 

contract, they must confer with the proper advisors (legal, financial management, etc.), 

assess factors (price competition, price analysis, cost analysis, requirement type and 

complexity, etc.), and apply adequate analytical measures (cost-benefit analysis, costeffectiveness analysis, etc.) prior to selecting a CPAF contract. Internal comments on the 

draft chapter have been received. Once these comments are resolved, the revised chapter 

will be distributed for Agency-wide comments through the Agency’s Directives 

Clearance process. The planned completion date was September 30, 2008, but it is 

anticipated that the final Contracts Management Manual chapter will be approved by 

March 30, 2009. 

Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and 

Resources Management revise the Contracts Management Manual to require work assignment 

4 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

managers, project officers, contracting officers, and Performance Evaluation Board members to 

explicitly document the basis for award-fee decisions made. 

Status: OARM reported it is in the process of revising the Contracts Management 

Manual, Chapter 16.1, to strengthen coordination in decision-making and documenting 

the basis for award fee decisions made. The Contracting Officer is responsible for 

reviewing the evaluation report to ensure the performance areas are evaluated in 

accordance with the established criteria and the results support the award fee. The 

revised chapter will be distributed for Agency-wide comments through the Agency’s 

Directives Clearance process. The planned completion date was September 30, 2008, but 

it is anticipated that the final Contracts Management Manual chapter will be approved by 

March 30, 2009. 

5 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OCFO 

Report Title: Audit of EPA’s Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial 

Statements 

Report No.: 08-1-0032 Date Issued: 11/15/2007 

Report Summary 

Our primary objectives for the financial statements audit were to determine whether: EPA’s 

consolidated financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects, EPA’s internal 

controls over financial reporting were in place, and EPA management complied with applicable 

laws and regulations. Although the Agency received a clean opinion, we noted one material 

weakness with EPA’s implementation of the “Currently Not Collectible” policy for accounts and 

noted six significant deficiencies. EPA was in noncompliance with regulations relating to 

reconciling intragovernmental transactions. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 29: We recommend that the OCFO continue to reconcile the Agency’s 

intragovernmental transactions and make appropriate adjustments to comply with federal 

financial reporting requirements. 

Status: While the Agency has worked with its trading partners to reduce differences, the 

OIG found that material differences in transaction amounts continue to exist. The 

planned completion date was 12/31/07. 

Recommendation 30: We recommend that the OCFO use the resolution dispute process to 

work with its trading partners on the treatment of accounting and accrual methodology 

differences. 

Status: OCFO reported that the dispute resolution process is not yet operational. The 

Chief Financial Officer’s Council (utilizing an Interagency Workgroup) has not yet 

established the Dispute Resolution Board. Once established, the Dispute Resolution 

process will be used as a last resort when cooperation cannot be obtained from OCFO’s 

trading partners in reconciling differences, and use of the Dispute Resolution process will 

be for material differences only. OCFO has used the Quarterly Interagency Material 

Difference Report for reconciling differences with other federal agencies but there are 

still differences. The planned completion date was 4/30/08. 

6 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OEI 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy Program Management Controls 

Report No.: 2007-P-00035 Date Issued: 09/17/2007 

Report Summary 

We sought to determine what steps EPA took to protect Personally Identifiable Information and 

the extent to which EPA put in place a management structure over the Agency’s Privacy 

Program. We found that EPA needs to set up a more comprehensive management control 

structure to govern and oversee the program. EPA needs to update its Privacy Program policies 

and establish processes to manage and make these policies available to responsible EPA 

personnel. Also, EPA needs to set up compliance and accountability processes to ensure 

adherence with key Privacy Program tenets. A major loss of privacy information could result in 

substantial harm, embarrassment, and inconvenience to individuals. The report 

recommendations were issued to OARM and OEI, but OARM has no past-due corrective actions 

recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 5: We recommend that the EPA Office of Environmental Information’s 

Director, Office of Information Collection, identify positions/job types with key Privacy 

Program responsibilities and develop appropriate sample cascading goals and objectives that 

EPA managers can use to establish Privacy Program accountability processes within their 

respective offices. Provide the developed guidance to the Office of Human Resources prior to 

distributing to Agency personnel for incorporation into the Agency’s Performance Appraisal and 

Recognition System. 

Status: OEI has identified positions with key Privacy Program responsibilities on the 

Privacy Program intranet site. In addition, the EPA Chief Information Officer reported 

that OEI is working with the Office of Human Resources to finalize sample privacy 

cascading goals and objectives, which will be incorporated into the Agency’s 

Performance Appraisal and Recognition System guidance documents and made available 

on the Office of Human Resources’ Website. The planned completion date was May 

2008. 

7 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OAR 

Report Title: ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity 

of the Label 

Report No.: 2007-P-00028 Date Issued: 08/01/2007 

Report Summary 

The ENERGY STAR Product Labeling Program identifies and promotes energy-efficient 

products. To ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the ENERGY STAR program and the 

integrity of its label, EPA established several processes. These processes include product 

specification setting and revision, product self-certification, product verification testing, and 

label utilization monitoring. We reviewed these processes and found improvements could be 

made that could better assure the integrity of the ENERGY STAR label for the consumer of 

home and office products. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

the Office of Air and Radiation clarify the decision criteria and document the process for 

revising an ENERGY STAR specification, including identifying circumstances when a 

specification revision would not be revised, despite a high market share of qualified products. 

Status: EPA stated that it has revised ENERGY STAR Specification Development 

Guiding Principles. However, EPA reports that completion of the corrective action has 

been delayed because of the need to reach agreement with the Department of Energy on 

the clarification OIG has requested. The agreed-to planned completion date was 

March 31, 2008. 

8 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Offices: OECA, OSWER 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to 

Superfund Cleanups 

Report No.: 2007-P-00026 Date Issued: 06/06/2007 

Report Summary 

Since the 1980s, EPA has used variations of the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach to clean 

up Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) equivalent hazardous waste sites. The NPL is a list 

of the Nation’s highest priority Superfund sites. The SA approach is an alternative to listing sites 

on the NPL. Recent reviews have reported problems in EPA’s managing and implementing the 

SA approach. In our evaluation, we found EPA has not implemented effective management 

tools or controls for the SA approach. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for OECA and for 

OSWER collaborate to develop specific instructions on when to use the SA designation (e.g., for 

sites or agreements) and update the Superfund Program Implementation Manual accordingly. 

The instructions should include provisions that state the SA site flag should not be removed even 

if the site is deleted, cleaned up, or proposed for the NPL, so that controls over documentation of 

SA sites are maintained. 

Status: OECA reported that the Agency is updating the Superfund Program 

Implementation Manual so the individual SA approach agreements can be identified, and 

sites that have SA approach agreements can be identified. When an indicator is tied 

directly to the SA approach agreement, that indicator will stay on the agreement even if 

the site itself is ultimately cleaned up under another approach. Completion is anticipated 

no later than March 31, 2009. The planned, agreed-to completion date was 

September 30, 2008. 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER track and 

report all Superfund Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures at SA sites. 

This includes construction completions, final remedy selection, human exposure under control, 

migration of contaminated groundwater under control, and site-wide ready-for-reuse. Report 

GPRA measures at SA sites separately from GPRA measures at NPL sites. 

Status: OECA reported that the Agency will compile a separate report for GPRA 

measures at sites with SA approach agreements that address site-wide contamination as 

part of its routine end of the fiscal year reporting. The Fiscal Year 2008 report should be 

available soon. The planned, agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2008. 

Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER revise 

applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to reflect that these performance measures will be 

tracked and reported for SA sites. 

9 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Status: OECA reported that the Agency is updating the Superfund Program 

Implementation Manual and that the manual is the primary mechanism for educating the 

regions on changes to data reporting. In addition, changes and implementation issues are 

discussed at national meetings with information and program managers and on monthly 

conference calls with the regional information management coordinators. Completion is 

anticipated no later than March 31, 2009. The planned, agreed-to completion date was 

September 30, 2008. 

10 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: 

Report No.: 

EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up 

2007-P-00025 Date Issued: 05/24/2007 

Report Summary 

Audit follow-up is essential to good management and is a shared responsibility of agency 

managers and audit organizations. EPA has audit follow-up procedures and designated officials 

who manage the process. We performed this review to determine (1) the status of corrective 

actions responding to OIG report recommendations for selected water reports, and (2) how 

complete and up-to-date is the MATS report information for selected OIG water reports. The 

report recommendations were issued to OECA, OW, and OCFO. However, OECA and OCFO 

have no past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for OW and OECA 

require the Audit Management Officials and Audit Follow-up Coordinators to implement EPA 

Order 2750, and biannually review audit management information including official files, to 

ensure completeness and accuracy. 

Status: OW planned that the Audit Management Officials and Audit Follow-up 

Coordinators would continue to review all audit management information, including 

official files, on a biannual basis. These reviews would be conducted every March and 

September to coincide with the Agency's requirement under EPA Order 2750 and the 

Inspector General Act to report to Congress on the status of completing corrective 

actions. OW said it would make every effort to maintain the completeness and accuracy 

of the information. OW planned that the Audit Follow-up Coordinators would develop 

and present guidance materials to all potential officials of Water program’s Action 

Officials on the Agency's requirement under EPA Order 2750 by March 21, 2008. 

11 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OPEI 

Report Title: Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management 

to Ensure Value 

Report No.: 2007-P-00013 Date Issued: 03/29/2007 

Report Summary 

Performance Track is a public-private partnership that encourages member facilities to improve 

the environment through using environmental management systems, local public outreach, and 

public reporting for results. The OIG sought to determine how Performance Track contributes to 

achieving environmental goals, how well it recognizes and encourages environmental leadership, 

and how the program tracks performance. 

We found that Performance Track did not have clear plans that connected activities with its 

goals, and did not have performance measures that show if it achieves anticipated results. The 

program tied an EPA goal to member commitments, but only 2 of 30 sampled Performance 

Track members met all of their environmental improvement commitments. In addition, members 

did not have access to some program benefits. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 3-4: We recommend that the Associate Administrator for OPEI design a 

comprehensive, strategic program plan to connect activities with goals and to encourage staff and 

management to focus on program goals and member commitments. 

Status: OPEI reported that it has completed the draft strategic plan and is in the process 

of receiving final comments. Final action is expected by November 15, 2008. This 

recommendation was originally planned for completion by December 2007. 

12 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OEI 

Report Title: EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software 

Report No.: 2007-P-00008 Date Issued: 01/29/2007 

Report Summary 

EPA’s OIG engaged KPMG, LLP to conduct an audit of access to and modification of the EPA’s 

mainframe system software housed at the Agency’s National Computer Center (NCC). The 

NCC is located at the Research Triangle Park campus in Raleigh, North Carolina. 

KPMG identified several weaknesses in EPA’s internal controls over its mainframe system 

software, including: 

•	 Roles and responsibilities were not clearly assigned. 

•	 Change controls were not performed in accordance with Agency policies. 

•	 Policies, procedures, and guides could be strengthened. 

•	 Security settings for sensitive datasets and programs were not effectively configured or 

implemented. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Director for Office of Technology Operations and 

Planning (OTOP), OEI, issue a memorandum to the NCC reinforcing management’s 

responsibility for complying with applicable Agency policy for system change management. 

Status: In response to the Discussion Draft of this Compendium, OEI reported that it has 

implemented this recommendation. OEI approved an updated NCC IBM Enterprise 

Server Change Management Directive 210.04 on October 16, 2008, and distributed a 

signed memorandum to the Hosting and Storage Solutions staff requiring all staff to 

review and follow the revised directive. The revised directive requires review and 

authorization of proposed changes and verification that changes have been successfully 

implemented. Since implementation of the recommendation occurred after 

September 30, 2008, the Semiannual reporting period cut-off date, we are including the 

recommendation in this Compendium. 

Recommendation 5: We recommend that the Director for OEI-OTOP update the Enterprise 

Server Standards and Procedures to include procedures for documenting mainframe change 

management decisions. Ensure the procedures include identifying and documenting (1) the steps 

management uses to identify the changes to implement and (2) management’s assessment of the 

impact of planned changes on the security and reliability of the mainframe processing 

environment. 

Status: Same as for Recommendation 3. 

13 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Recommendation 9: We recommend that the Director for OEI-OTOP complete efforts to 

update the OEI Information Security Manual and the EPA Information Security Manual. 

Subsequent to finalizing the changes, ensure the manuals are (1) reviewed timely by EPA 

management for adequacy, accuracy, and completeness; and (2) approved by EPA management 

in a timely manner. 

Status: OEI reported that resource challenges, including human resource and acquisition 

resource alignments, caused the original scheduled Agency Information Security 

Procedural Handbook to be delayed. Dedicated EPA staff has been assigned and a 

contract has been awarded. The Handbook is now scheduled for completion in March 

2009. 

As an interim stop gap while development of the Handbook was being planned, the EPA 

Chief Information Officer (CIO) issued CIO Policy Transmittal 08-005: Agency Network 

Security Policy on November 11, 2007. This Policy provided the Agency with specific 

references to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special 

Publication (SP) 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of 

Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-53 r1, Recommended Security Controls for 

Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-100, Information Security Handbook: 

A Guide for Managers; and several other related NIST publications. 

14 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OEI 

Report Title: EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and 

Reporting Incidents 

Report No.: 2007-P-00007 Date Issued: 01/11/2007 

Report Summary 

EPA uses contractors to collect and process information on its behalf. EPA’s Computer Security 

Incident Response Capability defines the formal process by which EPA responds to computer 

security-related incidents. We found that EPA had not established procedures to ensure 

identification of all contractor systems. Further, EPA had not ensured that information security 

requirements were accessible for the contractors and appropriately maintained. Although EPA 

offices were aware of the Agency’s computer security incident response policy, many offices 

lacked local reporting procedures, had not fully implemented automated monitoring tools, and 

did not have access to network attack trend information necessary to implement proactive 

defensive measures. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Environmental 

Information develop and implement guidance that EPA offices can use to identify contractor 

systems that contain EPA data. 

Status: OEI reported that resource challenges, including human resource and acquisition 

resource alignments, caused the original scheduled Agency Information Security 

Procedural Handbook to be delayed. The planned, agreed-to completion date for this 

corrective action was September 18, 2008. Dedicated EPA staff has been assigned and a 

contract has been awarded. The Handbook will address identification and certification 

and accreditation of contractor systems acting on behalf of the Agency and is now 

scheduled for completion in March 2009. 

As an interim stop gap while development of the Handbook was being planned, the CIO 

issued CIO Policy Transmittal 08-005: Agency Network Security Policy on November 

11, 2007. This Policy provided the Agency with specific references to the NIST SP 800-

37, Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information 

Systems; NIST SP 800-53 r1, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information 

Systems; NIST SP 800-100, Information Security Handbook: A Guide for Managers; and 

several other related NIST publications. The Policy also cited the Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal 

Information and Information Systems, to address identification of government and 

contractor systems acting on behalf of the government. 

15 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OSWER 

Report Title: Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina; 

Future Improvement Opportunities Exist 

Report No.: 2006-P-00038 Date Issued: 09/27/2006 

Report Summary 

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. 

EPA used existing emergency response contracts, in place at that time, to send numerous 

personnel to the area and purchase equipment and services to support them. Although the 

existing contracts allowed EPA to quickly respond to Hurricane Katrina, EPA still needed to 

award some noncompetitive contracts valued at about $9 million, during its Katrina response 

efforts, and we identified improvements EPA can make in future disaster responses. The report 

was issued to OARM and OSWER. However, OARM reported in MATS that all its corrective 

actions have been completed. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-1: Recognizing that the Assistant Administrators for OSWER and OARM 

have begun a process to improve EPA’s response efforts for future catastrophic events based on 

its Katrina experience, we recommend that the Assistant Administrators develop a strategy/plan 

to deploy a sufficient number of contracting officers and other support personnel to an 

emergency response area. 

Status: EPA reported that it developed and provided initial training for a Response 

Support Corps list of EPA Headquarters and regional personnel prepared to deploy to 

future incidents of national significance. OSWER developed national guidance on the 

training and exercise requirements for the Response Support Corps, which has been sent 

out for review as part of the Agency’s directives clearance process to be released as an 

EPA Order. The Order is expected to be final in December 2008. The agreed-to 

completion date was December 2006. 

Recommendation 4-1 (Bullet 5): Recognizing that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER has 

begun a process to improve EPA’s response efforts for future catastrophic events based on its 

Katrina experience, and that the Assistant Administrator for OARM has initiated a similar 

process for safeguarding equipment, we recommend that the Assistant Administrators for 

OSWER and OARM consider establishing a national custodial area in the Fixed Assets System 

for future large-scale national disasters so that all equipment purchases can be recorded more 

quickly and in a central location. 

Status: EPA reported that the Incident Management Handbook final version outlines the 

roles of key positions. OSWER stated that the equipment tracking application was 

moved into production in January 2007. EPA has been reviewing and modifying the 

design of the system, as well as populating the equipment data incrementally by all the 

Regions and warehouses. The system is expected to be in full use by December 2009. 

The agreed-to completion date was December 2006. 

16 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OCFO 

Report Title: EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific Sites 

Report No.: 2006-P-00027 Date Issued: 07/31/2006 

Report Summary 

EPA has the authority through the Superfund program to respond directly to releases of 

hazardous substances and seek recovery of its costs on a site-specific basis from the responsible 

parties. EPA obligates costs not readily identifiable to a site to the general site identifier “WQ,” 

and upon payment redistributes the costs to specific sites. We found EPA did not make timely 

redistributions of Superfund cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, and small purchase 

payments from the general site identifier “WQ” to the specific Superfund sites or other general 

site identifiers. As of January 2006, $39 million was recorded in “WQ” for those funding 

vehicles and undistributed for periods ranging from 2 months to 10 years. Without 

redistribution, the funds may not be recovered from responsible parties and be available for 

future site clean-up activities. Subsequent to our audit, EPA indicated the undistributed “WQ” 

was reduced. Report recommendations were issued to OARM, OCFO, and OSWER. However, 

OARM and OSWER reported in MATS that they have completed their corrective actions. 

On August 25, 2008, the OIG issued a follow-up audit report (Report No. 08-P-0236) on the 

Agency’s implementation of corrective actions taken in response to Report No. 2006-P-00027, 

and found the corrective actions had not been completed. EPA submitted a revised corrective 

action plan for Report No. 2006-P-00027 as part of its response to the follow-up report. The 

OIG agreed to the revised plan. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that OCFO, OSWER, and OARM, as agreed, develop 

written procedures for implementing EPA’s Superfund site-specific accounting policies related 

to the general site identifier “WQ,” including a timeliness standard for redistributions for each 

funding vehicle, an explanation of project officers’ responsibilities, monitoring procedures, and 

“WQ” cost reviews at the time of closeout. Develop a standard format for project officers of 

interagency agreements to transmit cost redistribution information to the Cincinnati Finance 

Center. 

Status: Under EPA’s revised corrective action plan, all policies related to Superfund 

Direct Site Charging will be contained in an updated Chapter 2 of the Resource 

Management and Directives System (RMDS) 2550D. The new agreed-to milestone date 

for implementation was July 31, 2008. Updated RMDS 2550D, Chapter 2, is currently in 

the Agency’s Directives Clearance process. Comments on the chapter are being 

reviewed, and the policy is expected to be issued in November 2008. 

Recommendation 4: We recommend that OSWER and OARM complete ongoing efforts to 

change the cooperative agreement conditions to require the recipient to provide site-specific cost 

details within 24 hours of drawing down funds, and enforce those conditions. 

17 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Status: OCFO reported that OCFO, OARM, and OSWER worked together to provide 

Award Officials a national programmatic term and condition to be included in future 

grants. The term and condition language has been incorporated into the draft policy that 

was submitted for RMDS clearance. See status for Recommendation 1. 

Recommendation 5: We recommend that OSWER and OARM amend the closeout process for 

cooperative agreements to include procedures to verify that “WQ” costs are redistributed. 

Status: Same as for Recommendation 1. 

Recommendation 6: We recommend that OSWER and OARM promote accountability for 

“WQ” redistributions among project officers and finance office personnel. 

Status: Same as for Recommendation 1. 

18 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Offices: OSWER, OW 

Report Title: EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments 

Report No.: 2006-P-00016 Date Issued: 03/15/2006 

Report Summary 

Contaminated sediments are the soils, sands, organic matter, and other minerals that accumulate 

at the bottom of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely affect 

human health and the environment. We sought to determine the effectiveness and outcomes 

achieved from EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. In particular, we evaluated 

whether federal authorities and resources provided effective solutions, and how well EPA 

measured strategy effectiveness and assessed contamination. The report was issued to OSWER, 

OW, OECA, OA, and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). However, OECA, OA, 

and ORD have no past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OSWER use 

the watershed approach, including concepts from the Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative, at 

contaminated sediment National Priorities List sites in high priority watersheds. 

Status: EPA conducted Webcast training on the Integrating Water and Waste Programs 

to Restore Watersheds manual on July 11, 2006. Additionally, EPA planned to conduct a 

2-day training workshop on the manual at three EPA regional offices using information 

from an actual watershed selected by the region hosting the training. The planned 

completion date was fall/winter 2006/2007. OSWER reported that a workshop on 

Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds was held in Region 9 in 

February 2008. The attendees included Region 9 Superfund and Water offices, 

California water program officials, U.S. Geological Survey representatives, tribal 

representatives, and local watershed groups. As a result of the workshop, an interactive 

Website is being developed to facilitate communication between water and waste 

programs for the watershed. The next workshop is scheduled for March 2009 in 

Region 4. 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW develop and 

implement a plan for future National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS) reports that, consistent 

with the Water Resources Development Act, provides a comprehensive national assessment of 

the extent and severity of contaminated sediments. At a minimum the design should: 

a. Use a statistical sampling approach as the basis for collecting data from EPA and other 

sources and assessing the national extent and severity of contaminated sediments. As a cost 

savings alternative, consider using statistical sampling in conjunction with existing data for the 

national assessment. Improve the completeness and availability of sample location information 

(metadata), quality assurance/quality control information, and assessment parameters for future 

NSQS reports. 

19 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Status: OW planned to work with ORD to determine if a statistical design for collecting 

contaminated sediment data is practical and, if practical, develop a statistical design. 

OW will also develop electronic transfer protocols with other EPA offices, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and States to collect contaminated sediment 

data that can be used for the next NSQS. The planned completion date was spring 2007. 

b. Ensure that the National Sediment Inventory and future NSQS reports include contaminated 

sediment data from all major sources, including the Great Lakes National Program Office and 

Superfund program. At a minimum, establish a formal coordination process for acquiring 

contaminated sediment data from EPA program offices and applicable agencies and 

organizations outside EPA. Also, consider cost-effective options for acquiring and compiling 

contaminated sediment data maintained in paper format. 

Status: OW planned to develop electronic transfer protocols with other EPA offices, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and States to collect contaminated 

sediment data that can be used for the next NSQS. OW also planned to develop with 

OSWER an approach for incorporating contaminated sediment data that are currently 

available only in paper format in the 10 EPA regional office or contractor files. 

Additionally, OW planned to hold workshops on the design of the next NSQS. The 

planned completion date was summer 2007. 

Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW determine a 

reporting frequency for the NSQS report that is both useful for decision makers and achievable 

for EPA, disclose to Congress that EPA cannot meet the current biennial reporting requirement 

specified by Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act, and provide Congress an 

alternative reporting schedule for consideration. 

Status: 1. OW planned to consult with ORD experts on sediment fate and transport to 

determine how much time, in general, it takes for sediment contaminant concentrations to 

change such that the difference can be measured. OW expects that this analysis will 

consider the range of deposition and degradation rates in several watersheds. This will 

enable OW to determine a reporting frequency based on science. The planned 

completion date was December 31, 2006. 

2. As part of the workplan being developed in response to Recommendation 2-1, 

determine the actual programmatic needs of other EPA programs for the NSQS data and 

analysis. This will enable OW to determine a reporting frequency based on the real needs 

of programs for this information. The date of this action is the completion of the 

workplan that responds to Recommendation 2-1. The planned completion date was 

June 30, 2006. 

20 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OSWER 

Report Title: 

Report No.: 

EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources 

2006-P-00013 Date Issued: 02/28/2006 

Report Summary 

The Superfund Trust Fund has decreased over the years so that in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 all 

Superfund appropriations came from general tax revenue rather than the Trust Fund. Recent 

studies have reported shortages in funding needs for Superfund, and have identified needed 

improvements in how the program is managed. We performed this review in response to a 

congressional request to evaluate Superfund expenditures at Headquarters and the regions. 

EPA has been unable to allocate and manage Superfund resources for clean-up as efficiently and 

effectively as possible because of the way the Agency accounts for program resources, manages 

by functions, supplements the program with other funds, relies on an outdated workload model, 

and maintains unliquidated Superfund obligations and funds in special accounts. Closely 

aligning offices that support the Superfund program and producing program performance and 

cost data have been limited because EPA disperses the responsibility for allocating and 

managing program resources. As of September 2005, approximately $465 million in special 

accounts was potentially available for transfer to the Trust Fund, though not all of these funds 

may have been available immediately. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-3 – Accounting Definitions: We recommend to the Assistant 

Administrator for OSWER that EPA should agree to define costs in a manner that supports 

management decision making and improve their accounting of such resources to maximize 

achieving program goals. 

Status: EPA reported in MATS that Recommendation 2-3 is partially implemented. 

There were two planned corrective actions to address this recommendation. To support 

management decision making, EPA modified Superfund E-Facts to reflect Superfund site 

cost data. The module is available for use by EPA staff. That action is considered 

completed. OCFO is in the process of determining if the Agency’s new centralized 

financial management system, which is being tested this fall, will solve the issue. If not, 

OCFO may consider having system adjustments made. 

Recommendation 2-5 – Determining Superfund Resource Needs and Allocations: We 

recommend to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER that EPA should conduct a workforce 

assessment and/or develop a workload model, comprehensively reevaluate regional and 

Headquarters Superfund personnel levels and allocations, and develop and communicate a 

schedule to regularly evaluate Superfund workload models. Superfund removal needs and 

current allocations should be reviewed. Consideration of factors including regional/State 

capacity to conduct removals, nature of prior removal actions in regions/States, nature of 

regulated businesses/activities in regions/States, and the type or volume of hazardous material 

transport that occurs in regions/States may assist need or allocation decisions. 

21 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Status: OSWER reported that the Superfund Program conducted a workload assessment 

project that will allow the Agency to estimate the workload under alternative program 

management scenarios for offices with Superfund resources in the regions and in 

Headquarters. The analysis was completed in May 2008. The Regional Directors have 

concurred on the draft final report. The final report is being forwarded to the Superfund 

Board of Directors for concurrence. Concurrence is expected by November 30, 2008. 

The planned, agreed-to milestone date for this recommendation was January 31, 2007. 

22 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OPPTS 

Report Title: Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children’s Health through the 

Food Quality Protection Act 

Report No.: 2006-P-00009 Date Issued: 01/10/2006 

Report Summary 

OIG performed this review to examine the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 on the 

EPA’s need for scientific data and predictive tools, particularly in relation to children’s health. This 

report is the second in a series of three reports on the Food Quality Protection Act’s impact on EPA 

regarding children’s health. OIG specifically sought in this review to determine: 

•	 What data requirements were required by the Food Quality Protection Act; 

•	 Whether testing guidelines, requirements, and evaluation procedures allow EPA’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) to determine the potential adverse effects of pesticide exposure on 

the developing nervous system; 

•	 What challenges OPP overcame and what opportunities exist for OPP to acquire better 

pesticide exposure data to aggregate risks; 

•	 What challenges exist and what opportunities are available for OPP to improve cumulative 

risk assessments; and 

•	 What opportunities exist to better manage pesticide health risk for children. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OPPTS 

develop a Standard Evaluation Procedure to assess results of developmental neurotoxicity 

testing. Within this Procedure, incorporate a discussion on the developmental neurotoxicity data 

call-in results and address which indicator, or combination of indicators, is considered most 

sensitive and meaningful for assessing developmental neurotoxicity from exposures during 

critical windows of development. 

Status: OPP planned to develop a standard evaluation procedure for developmental 

neurotoxicity studies. OPP would provide overall instructions and guidance to 

toxicology reviewers on whether the study was conducted, documented, and reported 

properly, and how to interpret the results for hazard assessment purposes. The planned 

completion date was December 2006. OPP reports that the work is ongoing. Additional 

time is needed for the review of many studies (73 to date) and to develop statistical 

procedures for analyzing study results. Not yet finalized, a standardized statistical 

procedure for analyzing developmental neurotoxicity acoustic startle studies has been 

developed. OPP is also exploring methods to look at the rate of pup body weight growth. 

OPP expects to complete the actions for this recommendation by December 2010. 

Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OPPTS 

update the dietary exposure databases used in probabilistic models for risk assessments as soon 

as the food consumption data from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey become available in 2006. EPA should also update the Food Commodity Intake 

23 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Database with the latest food consumption survey data, and if possible use data such as the 

Gerber Products Company’s Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study. 

Status: OPP planned to update the food consumption data in 2006 when the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services released the 

2003 and 2004 food intake data sets. The planned completion date was December 2006. 

OPP reports that it is currently working on updating the food consumption data. OPP 

statisticians are developing strategies for combining surveys from different sets of years 

in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to develop a database of 

adequate size. OPP is working with ORD and OW toward incorporating an updated 

Food Commodity Intake Database into OPP’s exposure and risk assessment software. 

OPP anticipates completing the actions for this recommendation by spring 2009. 

24 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OPEI 

Report Title: Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes 

Report No.: 2006-P-00001 Date Issued: 10/04/2005 

Report Summary 

This report responded to a congressional request that OIG evaluate the process for developing 

the EPA’s 2003 proposed rule for regulating disposable and reusable solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes. The OIG found the following regarding specific concerns presented to us by 

Congress related to EPA rulemaking for industrial wipes: 

•	 EPA met all legal and internal requirements for rulemaking when it developed the 

industrial wipes proposed rule. EPA complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, 

which establishes requirements for rulemaking. 

•	 EPA officials and staff had extensive contact with representatives of the industrial 

laundry industry, but also had extensive contacts with disposable wipes industry 

representatives and others. No one indicated they were excluded from the rulemaking 

process. EPA allowed active public involvement through meetings, telephone calls, 

e-mails, and letters. 

•	 The industrial laundry industry exerted considerable influence on the aspect of the 

proposed rule to exclude reusable wipes from solid waste regulations. However, we 

found no evidence that the influence was illegal or inconsistent with EPA’s standard 

business practice of obtaining input from stakeholders. 

Although the recommendations in this report were originally addressed to OPEI and OSWER, 

OPEI became the lead action office and is responsible for the unimplemented recommendation. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER, in 

collaboration with OPEI and the Agency’s Regulatory Steering Committee, develop a guidance 

document that discusses how to avoid favoritism and the appearance of favoritism in Agency 

actions, including the development of rules. 

Status: OPEI agreed to the recommendation and planned to issue the guidance in 2006. 

Upon further consideration, OPEI decided to address the issue with a memorandum to 

Agency senior managers directing them to “an abundance of resources currently available 

to EPA rulewriters and action developers on maintaining an open and fair dialogue with 

stakeholders and other interested parties.” The memorandum was issued on January 14, 

2008, and is available on EPA’s intranet site. It is incorporated into the Action 

Development Process and training for rulewriters Agency-wide. On October 17, 2008, 

OPEI requested approval from the OIG for this change in the corrective action plan. The 

OIG decision is pending. 

25 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OECA 

Report Title: Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes 

EPA’s Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance 

Report No.: 2005-P-00024 Date Issued: 09/19/2005 

Report Summary 

To enforce its regulations and achieve maximum compliance, a regulatory agency must know its 

entire regulated universe. We sought to determine how well OECA knows the composition and 

size of its regulated universe, as well as how OECA determines and reports compliance levels. 

We found OECA has limited knowledge of the diverse regulated universe for which it maintains 

responsibility. OECA has not updated its universe table since generating it in 2001, even though 

some universe figures for reviewed program areas have changed substantially. Various data 

quality issues impact OECA's ability to adequately identify the size of its regulated universe and 

associated compliance information. OECA concentrates most of its regulatory activities on large 

entities and knows little about the identities or cumulative impact of small entities. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA develop an 

objective of having the most up-to-date and reliable data on all entities that fall under its 

regulatory responsibility. OECA should adopt the goals of requiring States to track, record, and 

report data for entities over which States have regulatory responsibility. To achieve this goal, 

OECA should develop a multi-State, multi-program pilot program of collecting data that States 

track, record, verify, and report. 

Status: EPA agreed to develop a policy, in collaboration with States, for data to be 

collected and tracked by States for the Clean Water Act-National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program in the Integrated Compliance Information System 

(ICIS)-NPDES. EPA does not plan to conduct a multi-program pilot. On April 30, 2007, 

EPA distributed a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement to the Environmental Council of 

States and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

for review and comment. The original planned completion date for this recommendation 

was July 2006. However, EPA determined that undergoing a rule-making process is 

necessary and is pursuing a rule to address this recommendation. 

26 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OAR 

Report Title: Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V 

Permits If Program Goals Are to Be Fully Realized 

Report No.: 2005-P-00010 Date Issued: 03/09/2005 

Report Summary 

Title V of the Clean Air Act, designed to reduce violations and improve enforcement of air 

pollution laws for the largest sources of air pollution, requires that all major stationary sources of 

air pollutants obtain a permit to operate. More than 17,000 sources are subject to Title V permit 

requirements. Our analysis identified concerns with five key aspects of Title V permits: 

(1) permit clarity, (2) statements of basis, (3) monitoring provisions, (4) annual compliance 

certifications, and (5) practical enforceability. One finding in particular relates to compliance 

certifications and wording on credible evidence. When EPA amended the rule on continuous or 

intermittent compliance,1 a key clause on credible evidence was inadvertently left out. 

(Recommendation 2-2 addresses this issue.) 

Collectively, these problems can hamper the ability of EPA, State and local regulators, and the 

public to understand what requirements sources are subject to, how they will be measured, and 

ultimately to hold sources accountable for meeting applicable air quality requirements. EPA’s 

oversight and guidance of Title V activities have resulted in some improvements in Title V 

programs; however, areas needing further improvement remain. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR develop and 

issue guidance or rulemaking on annual compliance certification content which requires 

responsible officials to certify compliance with all applicable terms and conditions of the permit, 

as appropriate. 

Status: EPA stated in MATS that, based on recommendations from the Clean Air Act 

Advisory Group Task Force on Title V Implementation, the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards has begun developing a guidance document that will include, 

among other topics, guidance on compliance certifications. However, EPA has not 

submitted a formal action plan, stating how it plans to address this recommendation, to 

the OIG for approval. 

Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR issue the draft 

rule regarding intermittent versus continuous monitoring as it relates to annual compliance 

certifications and including credible evidence. 

Status: EPA did not concur with this recommendation, and it remains unresolved. The 

Agency plans to provide additional information and request that the OIG reconsider 

Recommendation 2-2. The OIG believes this recommendation is key to knowing the 

1

 40 Code of Federal Regulations 70.6 (c)(5)(iii)(B) 

27 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

basis of the permittee’s reported compliance with the terms and conditions of its Title V 

permit that underlies its annual compliance certification. 

Recommendation 2-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR develop 

nationwide guidance or rulemaking, as appropriate, on the contents of statements of basis which 

includes discussions of monitoring, operational requirements, regulatory applicability 

determinations, explanations of any conditions from previously issued permits that are not being 

transferred to the Title V permit, discussions of streamlining requirements, and other factual 

information, where advisable, including a listing of prior Title V permits issued to the same 

applicant at the plant, attainment status, and construction, permitting, and compliance history of 

the plant. 

Status: OAR plans to work with the regions to disseminate information about the 

positions EPA has taken on statements of basis in response to citizens programs and 

permit petitions. OAR also intends to develop a plan for identifying and sharing with 

permitting agencies those statements of basis that represent “best practices.” This effort 

is planned to be included in guidance documentation addressing Recommendation 2-1. 

However, EPA has not submitted a formal action plan, stating how it plans to address this 

recommendation, to the OIG for approval. 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OAR promulgate 

the draft order of sanctions rule which provides notice to State and local agencies, as well as the 

public, regarding the actions that will be taken when Notices of Deficiency are not timely 

resolved by State and local Title V permitting authorities. 

Status: EPA did not concur with this recommendation, and it remains unresolved. The 

Agency plans to provide additional information and request that the OIG reconsider 

Recommendation 3-1. The OIG believes this issue involves basic program criteria 

needed for EPA to oversee the Title V program. 

28 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program 

Report No.: 2004-P-00030 Date Issued: 09/28/2004 

Report Summary 

The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation’s sewer systems that characterized the 

early years of the pretreatment program have not endured. Since the middle of the 1990s, there 

has been little change in the volume of a broad list of toxic pollutants transferred to Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works or in the index of risk associated with these pollutants. As a result, the 

performance of EPA’s pretreatment program, which is responsible for controlling these 

discharges, is threatened, and progress toward achieving the Clean Water Act goal of eliminating 

toxic discharges that can harm water quality has stalled. 

The curtailing of the early gains may be explained in part by two factors: (1) dischargers that 

developed systems in response to EPA’s initial program requirements have not enhanced their 

pretreatment systems in recent years, and (2) the rate at which EPA has been issuing effluent 

guidelines dramatically declined since 1990. Without more visible leadership from 

Headquarters, improved programmatic information, and the adoption of results-based 

performance measures, EPA’s pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it made in its 

early years. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OW direct 

staff to develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for developing pretreatment 

results-based measurements; determine the resources necessary to carry out the strategy; and 

gain the support of other Agency, State, and Publicly Owned Treatment Works staff to carry out 

the strategy. 

Status: OW agreed to request information on databases used by the EPA regions and 

States to store information regarding Publicly Owned Treatment Works pretreatment 

program performance. Through the Permitting for Results process, OW will compile 

information regarding current data systems used to store pretreatment data at the EPA 

regional and State level. OW intends to use this information to identify inaccurate data 

and target data correction in the Permit Compliance System. Both of these activities are 

crucial to facilitate migration and retention of data as EPA transitions to the Integrated 

Compliance Information System. Once these efforts are complete, OW will be able to 

determine a long-term strategy based on data availability and resources, which should 

ultimately assist EPA in developing pretreatment result-based measurements. This 

recommendation was planned for completion by September 2007. 

Recommendation 4-3: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OW direct 

staff to evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to enable it to make further 

reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk. The additional funding should be requested in 

the next funding cycle. 

29 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Status: OW’s Office of Wastewater Management is finalizing its Strategic Plan for the 

next 3 years. As strategic goals and associated tasks are determined, OW will evaluate 

the resources necessary to complete those actions. In addition, the Permitting for 

Environmental Results effort has helped OW confirm that the resources allocated to 

implementing the entire NPDES program, including the pretreatment program, are 

insufficient. This recommendation was planned for completion by September 2007. 

30 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OSWER 

Report Title: EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: 

Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement 

Report No.: 2003-P-00012 Date Issued: 08/21/2003 

Report Summary 

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York 

City and the environmental aftermath were unprecedented. Responding to this crisis required 

organizations from all levels of government to coordinate their response efforts and to make 

critical public health and safety decisions quickly, and without all of the data that decisionmakers would normally desire. Many persons interviewed spoke highly of the response of EPA 

and its employees. Still, we, as well as EPA and others, identified lessons learned from the 

response that can improve EPA’s preparedness for future disasters. 

We found that when EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was “safe” to breathe, 

it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. In addition, work 

practices applicable to the transport of asbestos debris from the site were employed 

inconsistently, and the specific impact on air quality of any variance from EPA’s asbestos 

emergency work practices is unknown. Also, we believe that EPA could have taken a more 

proactive approach regarding indoor air clean-up and more measures can be taken to ensure that 

indoor clean-up effectively minimizes health risk exposure. Further, there were indications that 

the public did not receive sufficient air quality information and wanted more information on 

associated health risks. An overriding lesson learned was that, in a disaster, EPA needs to be 

prepared to assert its opinion and judgment on matters that impact human health and the 

environment since, ultimately, the public, Congress, and others expect EPA to monitor and 

resolve environmental issues. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

In part due to a lapse in coordination between the Administrator’s Office and OSWER, 

corrective actions agreed to by the OIG in 2004 in response to the recommendations in this 

report were not tracked, and the report was incorrectly closed out in MATS when some 

corrective actions were still ongoing or planned. The OIG met with EPA to resolve these issues. 

As a result, OSWER submitted a revised corrective action plan in September 2008, which 

identifies the corrective actions that have already been taken in response to most of the 

recommendations and proposes new, alternative corrective actions for the unimplemented 

recommendations. An OIG decision on the revised plan is pending. 

31 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Action Office: OECA 

Report Title: State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective 

Report No.: 2001-P-00013 Date Issued: 08/14/2001 

Report Summary 

The objective of the audit was to determine whether State enforcement of Clean Water Act 

discharge programs protect human health and the environment. Forty-four States play a major 

role in implementing the Clean Water Act’s NPDES program. These States have EPA approval 

to issue and enforce permits that set limits on pollutants that can be discharged into our nation’s 

surface waters. The OIG evaluated State enforcement of discharge programs in three regions; 

within each region, we evaluated one EPA-approved State program. We also took into account 

information from five State audits. 

The OIG believes that State enforcement programs could be much more effective in deterring 

noncompliance with discharge permits and, ultimately, improving the quality of the nation’s 

water. EPA and the States have been successful in reducing point source pollution since the 

Clean Water Act passed in 1972. However, despite tremendous progress, nearly 40 percent of 

the nation’s assessed waters are not meeting the standards States have set for them. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA make 

modernizing the Permit Compliance System (PCS) a high priority. Further, ensure that future 

systems: 

•	 Require electronic submission and evaluation of self-monitoring reports for all 

dischargers, including minor facilities and storm water. 

•	 Track storm water permits, inspections, compliance rates, and enforcement actions. 

Status: OECA has been granted a time extension to April 1, 2009, to complete the first 

part of this recommendation. For the second part of the recommendation, OECA 

reported that the new ICIS-NPDES does include the capacity to track items listed above. 

On April 30, 2007, EPA issued a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement for review and 

comment which includes requisite data elements to be entered into ICIS. The policy was 

opposed by States. OECA is pursuing a rule to require the data. 

Recommendation 3-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA accelerate 

the development of the Interim Data Exchange Format for the PCS. Also, before proceeding 

further into design and development, work with OW to ensure there is an up-to-date policy 

statement for water system criteria. 

Status: OECA reported that the Interim Data Exchange Format was successful for States 

that pass their data into PCS. EPA is not investing any additional resources for flowing 

data to PCS, but is focusing on an improved process for batch flow into ICIS-NPDES that 

will be piloted in spring 2008. The policy was opposed by States. Therefore, OECA is 

pursuing a rule to require submission of the data by States. 

32 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Recommendation 3-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA continue to 

report the PCS as an Agency-level weakness until the modernization project is implemented and 

the system data is reasonably accurate and complete. 

Status: OECA monitors/tracks this effort as part of the Agency's Annual Assurance 

process. Under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, OECA tracks PCS as an 

Agency level weakness. This will be a reportable weakness under the Act until Fiscal 

Year 2013, and will be monitored as part of the Act until such time it is successfully 

implemented, or the Agency's Administrator determines it is appropriate to remove as an 

Agency level weakness. OECA had planned for the data requirements to be finalized in 

July 2002 and system design specifications in September 2002. 

Recommendation 3-5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA revise 

guidance to specify that whole effluent toxicity violations are significant violations. Revise 

regulations to require whole effluent toxicity violations to be reported on quarterly 

noncompliance reports. 

Status: OECA reported that its success in meeting this recommendation is dependent on 

OW's progress in developing new whole effluent toxicity permit guidance. OW has 

deferred their work on this guidance indefinitely, and OECA has requested written 

documentation of this decision from OW. OECA has been unable to obtain this 

documentation to date. Consequently, OECA does not plan to consider issuing new 

whole effluent toxicity enforcement guidance at this time. OECA had planned for the 

guidance to be issued in 2003. 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

Appendix A 

OIG Reports with Unimplemented Recommendations 

by Program Office 

(as of September 30, 2008) 

OAR 

2007-P-00028, ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity of the 

Label 

2005-P-00010, Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V Permits 

If Program Goals Are to Be Fully Realized 

OARM 

08-P-0093, EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts 

OCFO 

08-1-0032, Audit of EPA’s Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements 

2006-P-00027, EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific Sites 

OECA 

2007-P-00026, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to 

Superfund Cleanups 

2005-P-00024, Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes EPA’s Ability 

to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance 

2001-P-00013, State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective 

OEI 

2007-P-00035, EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy Program Management Controls 

2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software 

2007-P-00007, EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting 

Incidents 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of September 30, 2008 

(Report No. 09-P-0014) 

OPEI 

2007-P-00013, Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management to Ensure 

Value 

2006-P-00001, Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes 

OPPTS 

2006-P-00009, Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children’s Health through the 

Food Quality Protection Act 

OSWER 

2007-P-00026, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to 

Superfund Cleanups 

2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina; 

Future Improvement Opportunities Exist 

2006-P-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments 

2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources 

2003-P-00012, EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, 

and Areas for Improvement 

OW 

2007-P-00025, EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up 

2006-P-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments 

2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program 

35