U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Compendium of 

Unimplemented Recommendations

as of March 31, 2010 

Report No. 10-N-0114 

April 28, 2010 
 

 

Abbreviations 

BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors 

CCSP Climate Change Science Program 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System 

CMM Contracts Management Manual 

COR Contracting Officer Representative 

CSO Combined Sewer Overflows 

CWS Community Water Systems 

EAS Enterprise Architecture Strategic 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAAR Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation 

FCID Food Commodity Intake Database 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GCRP Global Change Research Program 

ICR Information Collection Rule 

MATS Management Audit Tracking System 

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

OA Office of the Administrator 

OAM Office of Acquisition Management 

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 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

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 

OW	 Office of Water 

QAP Quality Assessment Plans 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

RCT Research Coordination Team 

RSL Regional Science Liaison 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SNC Significant Non-Compliance 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

WA Work Assignments 
 

 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

April 28, 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

Report No. 10-N-0114 

TO: Deputy Administrator 

Assistant Administrators 

Regional Administrators 

General Counsel 

Chief Financial Officer 

Associate Administrators 

Attached is the semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 

2010, prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). This Compendium fulfills the requirement of the Inspector General Act, 

as amended, to identify reports containing significant recommendations described in previous 

Semiannual Reports to Congress on which corrective actions have not been completed. 

This Compendium, issued in conjunction with the Semiannual Report to Congress and as a 

separate document to EPA leadership, is part of the OIG’s follow-up strategy to promote robust 

internal controls. Follow-up is done in collaboration with the EPA Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer and EPA Audit Follow-up Coordinators. The goal is to improve overall audit 

management by helping EPA managers gain a greater awareness of outstanding agreed-to 

commitments for action on OIG report recommendations. Implementing these recommendations 

will correct weaknesses, reduce vulnerabilities to risk, and leverage opportunities for improved 

performance. 

The significance of audit follow-up, as described by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A-50, is enhanced by the public’s expectation for greater transparency and a 

heightened interest by Congress in realizing potential opportunities for improvement in the 

Federal Government. The OIG’s previous Compendium reports appear to be having the intended 

effect of increasing Agency awareness and action on unimplemented OIG recommendations. 

We selected the unimplemented recommendations listed in this Compendium based on their 

significance and their status in EPA’s Management Audit Tracking System. In addition, some 

unimplemented recommendations were identified through review by the OIG. Exclusion from 

the Compendium does not indicate the OIG determined the corrective action to be complete for a 

recommendation. However, it is a goal of the OIG to verify as many significant 

recommendations reported as being complete as possible, through other reviews. 
 

According to OMB Circular A-50, audit follow-up is a shared responsibility between the Agency 

and the OIG. We will continue to identify unimplemented recommendations for attention and 

action, as well as remove the listing of recommendations as unimplemented when appropriate 

information of completion is provided. We hope that you find this tool useful in identifying 

ways to further improve Agency operations. 

Bill A. Roderick 

 Acting Inspector General 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Table of Contents 

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

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

OIG Report Number 

09-P-0242 .............................................................................................................. 4 

09-P-0232 .............................................................................................................. 6 

09-P-0229 .............................................................................................................. 7 

09-P-0223 .............................................................................................................. 8 

09-P-0203 .............................................................................................................. 9 

09-P-0197 .............................................................................................................. 10 

09-P-0089 .............................................................................................................. 12 

08-P-0266 .............................................................................................................. 15 

08-P-0141 .............................................................................................................. 16 

08-1-0032 ............................................................................................................... 17 

2007-P-00036 ........................................................................................................ 18 

2007-P-00027 ........................................................................................................ 20 

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

2006-P-00009 ........................................................................................................ 22 

2006-P-00007 ........................................................................................................ 23 

2005-P-00010 ........................................................................................................ 24 

2004-P-00030 ........................................................................................................ 26 

2002-P-00012 ........................................................................................................ 27 

Appendix A: OIG Reports with Unimplemented 

Recommendations by Program Office ............................................. 28 

Appendix B: Unimplemented Recommendations: 

 10/28/09 Compendium Compared to Current Compendium ........... 30 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Introduction 

Purpose 

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

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

remain unimplemented past the due date agreed to by EPA and the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG). 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 

in conjunction with the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress for the reporting period October 1, 

2009, through March 31, 2010. The OIG intends to issue this Compendium each semiannual 

reporting period. The Compendium will keep Agency management informed about EPA’s 

outstanding commitments and its progress in taking agreed-upon corrective actions on OIG 

recommendations to improve programs and operations. 

Background 

EPA’s OIG issues recommendations 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, 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. 

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

Counsel, and each Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator office designates an Audit 

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

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

recommendations in an audit report are completed and certified, the Agency should inactivate 

that report’s MATS file. The Audit Follow-up Coordinator then no longer has to track the 

report. The Agency self-certifies that corrective actions are completed. The Agency is also 

responsible under the Inspector General Act for reporting on audit reports for which final 

1
 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

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. 

This is the fourth edition of the Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations. It identifies 

34 unimplemented recommendations from 18 reports compared to 44 unimplemented 

recommendations from 26 reports identified in the third edition for the period ending 

September 30, 2009. Of the 34 unimplemented recommendations currently reported, 10 from 

7 reports are continuing, and 24 from 11 reports are newly identified. Also, we removed 

34 unimplemented recommendations from 20 reports that were included in the previous 

Compendium. Please note that removal of an unimplemented recommendation does not imply 

that it was verified as implemented, but rather, it was reported as being completed or that the 

target completion date has been revised with OIG approval. 

Scope and Methodology 

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

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

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

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

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

Although MATS was our primary source for identifying unimplemented recommendations, we 

did perform additional steps to search for unimplemented recommendations that may not have 

been identified in MATS. 

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

through September 30, 2009, to identify significant unimplemented recommendations for 

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

recommendations from Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001. 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 significant recommendations in the following terms: 

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

costs or value. 

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

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

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

and the environment. 

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

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

2
 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

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 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) 

Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

Office of the Administrator (OA) 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

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, in response to this Compendium. 

3
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Action Office: OARM 

Report Title: Contractor Invoice Internal Controls Need Improvement 

Report No.: 09-P-0242 

Date Issued: 09/23/2009 

Report Summary 

In 2008, EPA paid contractors $1.3 billion. To safeguard EPA funds, invoices must be reviewed 

to determine whether the submitted costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable. The OIG 

conducted this review to determine whether EPA controls ensure that invoiced contractor costs 

are properly supported and allowable in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

During our review, we found (1) invoice reviews were not always documented as required by the 

Contracts Management Manual (CMM), (2) Project Officer reviews were based on incomplete 

information, (3) monthly progress reports did not always contain the information needed to 

evaluate invoices, and (4) Agency staff did not perform required rate verifications and math 

checks. Some responsible for invoice reviews were unaware of the guidance and checklists in 

the CMM, did not understand the level of documentation needed to review invoices, or did not 

adhere to the guidance. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

the CMM to require use of the checklist for invoice reviews the contracting officer 

representatives (CORs) perform, and to ensure CORs receive invoices and supporting 

documentation to assist their reviews. 

Status: OARM agreed that the CMM needs to be modified to better define documentation 

needs at two levels: first, the supporting documentation that needs to be supplied by the 

contractor to assist the COR in invoice reviews; and second, the documentation that the 

COR needs to prepare to prove that a sufficient invoice review has been performed. 

OARM planned to encourage CORs to use the checklist if it is applicable to their specific 

contract. For cases where it does not apply, OARM planned to define the specific 

documentation that the COR needs to prepare to properly document that an invoice review 

has been performed. OARM planned to promulgate the new documentation definitions via 

an Interim Policy Notice. The agreed-to completion date was December 31, 2009. 

Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM, where the 

progress report and invoice did not cover the same period, require the contractors identified 

during this review to revise their progress reports to match the time period of the invoice. 

Status: OARM agreed that EPA’s contracting officers (COs) would notify their 

contractors of this requirement via a written letter. OARM planned that in cases where 

the contracts do not contain the requirement that progress report and invoice periods 

match, the contracts would be modified. The agreed-to completion date was December 

31, 2009. 

4
 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM require that 

the COs, as part of the annual invoice review, perform periodic reviews to make certain that 

project officers and CORs are: (a) implementing changes to the CMM made in response to the 

audit report; and (b) requiring contractors to submit invoices and progress reports with matching 

periods of performance. 

Status: OARM agreed that the reviews would be carried out in each CO’s annual review 

of invoices as required by their Division’s or Region’s Quality Assessment Plan (QAP). 

OARM planned that the QAP policy would be modified accordingly in EPA’s 

Acquisition Handbook. The agreed-to completion date was December 31, 2009. 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM analyze 

financial monitoring reviews to identify findings that are recurring on multiple contracts. 

Status: OARM agreed to complete the analysis by November 30, 2009. 

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

corrective action for addressing the common findings identified in financial monitoring reviews. 

Status: OARM agreed to develop the corrective action plan by December 31, 2009. 

5
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: ORD 

Report Title: EPA’s Office of Research and Development Could Better Use the Federal 

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act to Improve Operations 

Report No.: 09-P-0232 

Date Issued: 09/15/2009 

Report Summary 

ORD’s management integrity program is inconsistent with Agency Federal Managers’ Financial 

Integrity Act (FMFIA) guidance. ORD approaches FMFIA as an administrative reporting 

activity rather than an opportunity to evaluate and report on research program performance. As a 

result, ORD has not: 

•	 Conducted a comprehensive risk assessment. 

•	 Included National Program Directors in the FMFIA process. 

•	 Developed and implemented a strategy to establish and evaluate the effectiveness of 

internal controls over research programs. 

•	 Provided FMFIA training to managers and staff. 

•	 Included relevant risk and program performance information in assurance letters. 

Applying FMFIA as intended would help EPA achieve its mission and program results through 

improved accountability. ORD has initiated actions that we believe will address our findings, 

such as developing a draft multiyear review strategy. In developing its new strategy, ORD 

should include programmatic elements, a training plan, pertinent results from peer reviews, and 

best practices to ensure more effective FMFIA implementation. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

Management Integrity Policy to include programmatic operations. The policy should include a 

role for National Program Directors, integrate performance measures, reference current FMFIA 

guidance, and include a training plan. The program should incorporate public sector best 

practices and a two-track approach to address administrative and programmatic elements. 

Status: ORD planned to revise the ORD Management Integrity Policy to include 

programmatic operations, a definition of the National Program Directors’ role in the 

process, and integration of performance measures and outcomes. The agreed-to 

completion date was January 31, 2010. 

6
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OARM 

Report Title: EPA Should Stop Providing Estimates of Total Labor Hours to Contractors 

Report No.: 09-P-0229 

Date Issued: 09/09/2009 

Report Summary 

For 6 of the 22 contracts we reviewed, EPA provided the contractor with the government’s 

estimate for total labor hours prior to receiving the contractor’s proposal. The Federal 

Acquisition Regulation provides that the government may use various cost analysis techniques to 

ensure a fair and reasonable price, including comparing proposed prices with IGCEs. Since EPA 

is providing total labor hours to the contractor prior to receiving the proposal, EPA may be 

diminishing its ability to obtain a fair and reasonable price. 

Office of Acquisition Management managers pointed out that EPA’s Acquisition Regulation 

(EPAAR) requires that estimated labor hours be provided to contractors for contracts in which 

work is ordered through work assignments. Yet, an Office of Acquisition Management guide 

states that information from the IGCE should not be provided to the contractor. When EPA 

provides its estimate of total labor hours before receiving the proposal, the contractor does not 

have an incentive to seek a more efficient or innovative approach to meet the government’s 

requirement. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Assistant Administrator for OARM revise the EPAAR 

(48 CFR, Section 1552.211-74(b)) to eliminate the requirement that EPA include total estimated 

labor hours in work assignments or identify specific circumstances in which the requirement 

should apply. 

Status: EPA agreed that the EPAAR clause on work assignments (WAs) should be 

modified to provide better guidance to contracting officers (COs) on issuing WAs. The 

new guidance will clarify the discretion COs have in revealing estimated labor hours to 

the contractor, depending on the circumstances of the individual contracting situation. 

EPA planned to issue interim guidance while the revised EPAAR clause is promulgated. 

The agreed-to completion date was November 1, 2009. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Assistant Administrator for OARM communicate to 

contract management and program staff who prepare and use IGCEs that estimates of total labor 

hours, or any other cost-related estimates, should not be provided to contractors prior to 

receiving the contractor’s proposal. 

Status: EPA agreed with the recommendation and planned to communicate the new 

interim WA guidance, as described above, to all affected parties that prepare and use 

IGCEs. The agreed-to completion date was November 1, 2009. 

7
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality 

Standards 

Report No.: 09-P-0223 

Date Issued: 08/26/2009 

Report Summary 

EPA’s 1998 National Strategy and Plan to promote State adoption of nutrient water quality 

standards (which better protect aquatic life and human health) has been ineffective. In 1998, 

EPA stated that a critical need existed for improved water quality standards, given the number of 

water bodies impaired from nutrients. In the 11 years since EPA issued its strategy, half the 

States still had no numeric nutrient standards. States have not been motivated to create these 

standards because implementing them is costly and often unpopular with various constituencies. 

EPA has not held the States accountable to committed milestones. The current approach does 

not assure that States will develop standards that provide adequate protection for downstream 

waters. Until recently, EPA has not used its Clean Water Act authority to promulgate water 

quality standards for States. 

EPA cannot rely on the States alone to ensure that numeric nutrient standards are established. 

EPA should prioritize States/waters significantly impacted by excess nutrients and determine 

whether it should set the standards. EPA also needs to establish effective monitoring and 

measures so that accurate program progress is reported. These progress reports will assist EPA 

management in program decision making. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW establish EPA 

and State accountability for meeting milestones for adopting numeric nutrient water quality 

standards for those waters in the rest of the Nation that require them. EPA should do this by: 

(a) Requiring States to develop milestones based on resources available. 

(b) Reviewing those milestones and approving them as appropriate 

Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW establish 

metrics to gauge the actual progress made by States in adopting numeric nutrient water quality 

standards. 

Recommendation 2-5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW ensure that the 

regions annually validate Water Quality Standards Actions Tracking Applications data. 

Status: OW agreed to utilize the next available opportunity to revise internal program 

activity reports to better gauge cumulative State progress. This corrective action is 

associated with the three recommendations above. The agreed-to completion date was 

February 28, 2010. 

8
 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OCFO 

Report Title: EPA Should Use FMFIA to Improve Programmatic Operations 

Report No.: 09-P-0203 

Date Issued: 08/06/2009 

Report Summary 

EPA has not implemented and used FMFIA to improve program operations, as intended by 

federal and Agency guidance. Although EPA offices rely on annual guidance that OCFO 

issues: 

•	 EPA offices have not developed internal control review strategies that include elements 

such as the Government Performance and Results Act. 

•	 OCFO’s guidance and training have not provided staff and managers with adequate 

awareness of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) internal control 

standards. 

•	 OCFO’s guidance, until recently, has not required offices to report on compliance with 

all GAO standards. 

•	 OCFO did not devote needed resources to validate assurance letters. 

Per Agency guidance, OCFO is responsible for ensuring and implementing a strategy for 

validating EPA’s compliance with FMFIA. However, OCFO relies on Assistant and Regional 

Administrators to verify letters’ program elements before certifying them. EPA offices view 

FMFIA reporting as an administrative task, rather than an opportunity to achieve goals by 

assessing program results and identifying risks. As a result, when signing EPA letters, the 

Administrator has little assurance that offices reviewed program operations. Additional 

emphasis on FMFIA’s importance could result in more certain, documented assurance in the 

Agency’s Performance and Accountability Report that EPA programs annually evaluate internal 

controls to comply with GAO’s standards and deter fraud, waste, and mismanagement. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer revise the internal 

checklist that OCFO uses as part of its strategy for validating Agency-wide FMFIA compliance 

to confirm that EPA offices addressed each of the five GAO standards in evaluating their internal 

controls and identifying weaknesses. Describe, in its annual Agency guidance, OCFO’s strategy 

for assessing offices’ assurance letters for compliance. 

Status: OCFO agreed to include a description of how OCFO will review and assess 

offices’ assurance letters in FY 2010 management integrity guidance. OCFO anticipated 

issuing its FY 2010 management integrity guidance on December 31, 2009. However, 

for FY 2010, OCFO revised its approach and issued separate financial and programmatic 

guidance on February 18, 2010, and March 10, 2010, respectively. OCFO will issue 

guidance for preparing and submitting assurance letters including a description of how 

OCFO will assess Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators’ (AA/RAs) 

assurance letters, in April or May 2010. The original agreed-to completion date was 

December 31, 2009. 

9
 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OARM 

Report Title: EPA Should Delay Deploying Its New Acquisition System until Testing Is 

Completed 

Report No.: 09-P-0197 

Date Issued: 07/20/09 

Report Summary 

Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) did not comply with EPA’s System Life Cycle 

Management policy and procedure while developing the new EPA Acquisition System (EAS). 

OAM did not fully develop the system’s requirements documents during the requirements phase 

and requirements were incomplete. Test scripts were not developed to prove that the system 

fulfilled all requirements and ensure that the system would function as required. Although the 

EAS Project Manager developed a Draft Master Test Plan that contained testing procedures, 

OAM management never approved, implemented, and enforced this plan. 

OAM management did not provide the oversight, authority, and support necessary to ensure the 

EAS development project complied with EPA’s System Life Cycle Management policy and 

procedure. Because OAM had not completed the steps needed to reasonably ensure that EAS 

would meet EPA’s business needs if implemented by June 29, 2009, as planned, OAM does not 

have a sound basis for deploying EAS as scheduled. More management emphasis is needed to 

ensure the system development control environment achieves the desired results and the end 

product meets EPA’s needs. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM identify and 

document all system requirements, including functional, technical, security, and EPA-specific 

requirements, in the EAS Requirements Document(s). 

Status: EPA planned to: 

a.	 Identify new and detailed requirements using minutes of meetings 

between EAS Developer and EPA Stakeholders. The agreed-to 

completion date was October 16, 2009. 

b.	 Update Requirements Baseline with approved new and detailed 

requirements. The agreed-to completion date was October 21, 2009. 

c.	 Update the Requirements Traceability Matrix with new detailed 

requirements from updated Requirements Baseline. The agreed-to 

completion date was October 21, 2009. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM update, 

review, and implement formal testing policies and procedures that would enforce: 

a.	 the review and approval of all system requirements prior to testing, 

b.	 the completion of Requirement Traceability Matrices mapping each system requirement 

to a test script, 

c.	 the independent validation of vendor-supplied test scripts prior to testing, and 

d.	 the review and approval of testing results at the end of each round of testing. 

10
 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Status: EPA planned to conduct 12 different actions in response to this recommendation, 

e.g., verifying the accuracy and completeness of new and detailed requirements, 

reviewing and approving all system requirements prior to testing, conducting an 

Integrated Baseline Review of the Performance Measurement Baseline, etc. The latest 

agreed-to completion date for all of the actions was March 26, 2010. 

Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM delay EAS 

implementation until OAM has successfully tested all of the system requirements. 

Status: EPA planned to conduct system tests. The agreed-to completion date was 

August 9, 2009. 

Recommendation 4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OARM update the 

EAS Project Schedule to communicate the current status of and future plans for EAS project 

activities. 

Status: EPA planned to update the EAS Project Schedule with approved schedule 

changes following the Interim Baseline Requirements and distribute project schedule to 

EAS Integrated Project Team. The agreed-to completion date was November 13, 2009. 

11
 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OA, ORD 

Report Title: EPA Needs a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to Fulfill its Emerging 

Climate Change Role 

Report No.: 09-P-0089 

Date Issued: 02/02/2009 

Report Summary 

EPA does not have an overall plan to ensure developing consistent, compatible climate change 

strategies across the Agency. We surveyed EPA regions and offices and found they need more 

information on a variety of climate change topics. They need technical climate change research 

and tools as well as other climate change policy guidance and direction. We learned that EPA’s 

OW and several regional offices have developed or are developing their own individual climate 

change strategies and plans. The lack of an overall climate change policy can result in 

duplication, inconsistent approaches, and wasted resources among EPA’s regions and offices. 

EPA has not issued interim guidance to give its major components consistent direction to ensure 

that a compatible national policy – when it emerges – will not result in wasted efforts. 

EPA’s latest plan for future climate change research does not address the full range of emerging 

information needs. Specifically, the projected time of completion or the scope of some research 

projects do not match the timing or the scope of regions’ needs. ORD does not have a central 

repository of its climate change research for its internal users, nor does it effectively 

communicate the results of its climate change research to EPA’s internal users. While ORD 

collects research requirements from regions and program offices, the selection criteria for 

research topics are not transparent to the regions. Finally, ORD does not have a system to track 

research requests through completion, or a formal mechanism to obtain feedback from its users. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 3-1: We recommend that the Deputy Administrator establish guidance to 

programs and regional offices for regularly entering their climate change scientific information 

in the Science Inventory. 

Status: ORD planned to continue to provide the Science Inventory (and the 

Environmental Science Connector) as depositories for EPA’s scientific information. On 

an annual basis, the Administrator or Deputy Administrator planned to continue to issue 

guidance to program and regional offices for entering their scientific information into the 

Science Inventory, including climate science information. The agreed-to completion date 

was October 2009. 

Each program and regional office will have the responsibility of entering and maintaining 

its own scientific information in the Science Inventory on an ongoing basis. ORD 

planned to provide the Administrator with annual reports on the number of entries related 

to climate change by each program and regional office in the Science Inventory. The 

agreed-to completion date was January 2010. 

Recommendation 3-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for ORD establish a 

formal, transparent research requirements determination process that includes well-defined 

procedures for identifying a unified set of priority climate change research needs. 

12
 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Status: ORD stated that its Global Change Research Program (GCRP) already has an 

effective process in place to determine the highest-priority research requirements of 

EPA’s Programs and Regions and of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 

GCRP’s prioritization process includes the Research Coordination Team (RCT), 

Regional Science Liaisons (RSLs), Regional Office Climate Coordinators, input from the 

Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), input from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), 

priorities set by the CCSP, and other formal and informal mechanisms. Several of these 

processes (e.g., the RCT) include representatives from ORD, program offices, and 

regional offices. 

To make ORD’s and the GCRP’s research prioritization processes more transparent to the 

program and regional offices, the National Program Director for the GCRP planned to 

issue a memorandum describing how GCRP priorities are set on an annual basis. This 

memorandum will include a discussion of how the GCRP must consider the individual 

requests of programs and regions, as well its interagency responsibilities under the CCSP, 

when determining priorities. The agreed-to completion date was January 31, 2010. 

Recommendation 3-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for ORD establish a 

formal mechanism to track regional research needs from research project selection to 

completion, and to requestor. 

Status: ORD stated that GCRP already has an effective process in place to determine the 

highest-priority research requirements of EPA’s programs and regions, and of the CCSP. 

GCRP’s prioritization process includes RCT, RSLs, Regional Office Climate 

Coordinators, input from BOSC, input from SAB, priorities set by the CCSP, and other 

formal and informal mechanisms. Several of these processes (e.g., the RCT) include 

representatives from ORD, program offices, and regional offices. 

To make ORD’s and the GCRP’s research prioritization processes more transparent to the 

program and regional offices, the National Program Director for the GCRP planned to 

issue a memorandum describing how GCRP priorities are set on an annual basis. This 

memorandum will include a discussion of how the GCRP must consider the individual 

requests of programs and regions, as well its interagency responsibilities under the CCSP, 

when determining priorities. The agreed-to completion date was January 31, 2010. 

Recommendation 3-5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for ORD establish a 

formal method for coordinating GCRP’s research work with regions and program offices, 

communicating research results, and collecting feedback on research products. The feedback 

requested should include the accessibility, usability, value, and awareness of updates to the 

Science Inventory and the Environmental Science Connector. 

Status: ORD/GCRP stated that it already uses several mechanisms to coordinate, 

communicate, and collect feedback. The Environmental Science Connector’s “Global 

Change Resource Center” and GCRP’s new public Website are two tools used by ORD to 

coordinate and communicate its global change research. In addition, GCRP’s National 

Program Director uses biweekly Global Conference Calls to obtain feedback from all 

program and regional offices. 

13
 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

To further formalize its ongoing efforts, the National Program Director for the GCRP 

planned to issue a memorandum summarizing the mechanisms that ORD has already put 

in place to communicate and coordinate GCRP’s work with the program and regional 

offices. This memorandum will be sent to partners across the Agency to improve their 

awareness of GCRP’s resources. This memorandum will be updated whenever new 

mechanisms are developed. The agreed-to completion date was January 31, 2010. 

ORD stated that it has begun to survey EPA stakeholders about the timeliness and 

usefulness of products from its various programs to enhance research planning. The 

GCRP planned to issue such a survey that will include a request for feedback on the 

accessibility, usability, value, and awareness of updates to the Science Inventory and 

Environmental Science Connector. The agreed-to completion date was 

October 30, 2009. 

14
 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

A0ction Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight 

Report No.: 08-P-0266 

Date Issued: 09/16/2008 

Report Summary 

EPA, rather than the States, has the responsibility for protecting human health and the 

environment on tribal lands. Approximately 600 tribal community water systems (CWSs) serve 

an estimated 622,000 people. EPA staff members provide these systems with technical and other 

assistance so that tribal CWSs maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. 

We conducted this evaluation to assess EPA’s oversight and assistance of tribal CWSs, and to 

independently evaluate water quality at selected drinking water systems. 

Tribal drinking water sample results in EPA files indicate that drinking water supplies 

consistently met regulatory requirements. Regional EPA staff also made correct compliance 

decisions with sample results that tribal CWSs provided. However, the OIG found internal 

control deficiencies in administering EPA’s oversight of tribal CWSs in two of the five regions 

we reviewed. To varying degrees, tribal drinking water records in four of the five regions were 

incomplete due to a failure to maintain oversight of system operations and/or poor records 

management. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 2-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW direct regions 

to issue monitoring and reporting violations, take appropriate enforcement actions against tribal 

CWSs with health-based violations or who fail to monitor or submit monitoring reports, and 

enter violations into Safe Drinking Water Information System. 

Status: OW planned to issue guidance regarding expectations of regions implementing the 

tribal drinking water program. The original agreed-to completion date was April 30, 2009. 

15
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OECA 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements 

Report No.: 08-P-0141 

Date Issued: 04/28/2008 

Report Summary 

According to EPA’s Superfund information system, there were 3,397 active Superfund 

enforcement instruments to ensure clean-ups at National Priorities List sites as of September 30, 

2007. Yet, EPA does not nationally compile or track data on substantial noncompliance (SNC) 

with the terms or requirements of these instruments. Therefore, we were not able to fully 

determine whether the regions have resolved Superfund instrument violations consistent with 

criteria and authorities. In 2000, though, EPA recognized it needed to improve in this area. It 

issued an internal report recommending that the regions improve their data on the compliance 

status of Superfund enforcement instruments and responses to noncompliance. However, EPA 

has not implemented this recommendation. Consequently, the Agency lacks the internal controls 

necessary to monitor compliance with Superfund instruments nationally. 

In a limited review of EPA regions’ enforcement records, we found that two regions were 

consistent with EPA guidance and authorities when they took enforcement actions in 12 

instances of SNC. While the regions took appropriate actions to address these 12 violations, 

Region 5 had not established necessary and enforceable requirements to address contamination 

from the Muskego Landfill Site, in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. The report was issued to 

OECA and Region 5. However, Region 5 has no past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA annually 

review the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 

System (CERCLIS) compliance data to monitor Agency status and progress in managing SNC 

by way of Superfund instruments. 

Status: OECA stated that CERCLIS data will be pulled to establish a baseline for the 

status of compliance with Superfund enforcement instruments. This is based upon 

compliance monitoring data for FY 2008. This process will be repeated annually after 

November 2009. The agreed-to completion date was November 30, 2009. 

16
 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

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 

We rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA’s Consolidated Financial Statements for 

Fiscal Years 2007 and 2006 (restated), meaning that they were fairly presented and free of 

material misstatement. We noted one material weakness with EPA’s Implementation of the 

“Currently Not Collectible” policy for accounts receivable that caused a Material 

Understatement of Asset Value and led to the restatement of the Fiscal Year 2006 financial 

statements. Further, we noted the following six significant deficiencies: 

•	 EPA did not properly compute an allowance for doubtful accounts. 

•	 EPA needs to improve internal controls in recording and accounting for accounts 

receivable. 

•	 Key applications do not meet federal and EPA information security requirements. 

•	 Access and security practices over critical information technology assets need 

improvement. 

•	 EPA needs to improve controls over the Integrated Financial Management System
 

Suspense Table. 

•	 EPA did not maintain adequate documentation for obligating accounting adjustments. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 18: We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer conduct and document 

an annual verification and validation of implemented procedures to ensure controls are 

implemented as intended and are effective. 

Status: According to MATS, OARM incorporated the verification and validation process 

into their contract by November 11, 2007. However, during a follow-up review, OIG 

found that EPA had not completed the corrective actions associated with this 

recommendation. The OIG also found that EPA was not performing monthly server 

vulnerability scanning as stated in the OARM Server Scanning standard operating 

procedures. 

17
 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to 

Demonstrate Environmental Results 

Report No.: 2007-P-00036 

Date Issued: 09/19/2007 

Report Summary 

EPA does not have comprehensive information on the outcomes of the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) program nationwide, nor national data on TMDL implementation activities. EPA 

and States are responsible for implementing point source TMDLs; however, EPA cannot identify 

all of the permitted dischargers that should receive or have received wasteload allocations. 

Measuring nonpoint source TMDL implementation is difficult because EPA does not have 

statutory authority to regulate nonpoint sources and it is highly dependent on State and local 

stakeholders. EPA’s lack of information prevents the Agency from determining the extent to 

which TMDLs are restoring impaired waters and whether TMDL implementation activities are 

occurring in a timely manner. 

EPA has begun to take steps to measure program results and improve program data, sponsored 

several studies of TMDL implementation, and is studying additional TMDL results measures. 

Developing meaningful measures is challenging; however, EPA needs to provide more 

management direction to improve its ability to assess how well this critical program is 

functioning. The TMDL and performance measures we reviewed do not provide clear and 

complete metrics of the program’s accomplishments. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

that TMDLs are being implemented by annually reporting on the progress of TMDL 

implementation activities completed nationwide including the number of TMDLs: 

•	 that have all wasteload allocations incorporated into NPDES permits, 

•	 that have implemented load allocations through at least one best management practice 

funded through the Section 319 Program, and 

•	 for which implementation data are not available to EPA. 

Status: According to MATS, OW has: 

•	 Reported on TMDL implementation rates, including point source permits and 

nonpoint source best management practices, through a statistical study covering 

EPA Region 5. 

•	 Completed development of a national statistical study design to assess TMDL 

implementation rates. 

•	 Queried EPA data systems and issued its first annual national report on the three 

metrics specified in 1-2. 

OW has three corrective actions that have not been completed for this 

recommendation: 

•	 Complete development of an information collection rule (ICR) that covers 

assessments of TMDL implementation. 

18
 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

•	 Produce a synthesis paper covering the findings from multiple implementationrelated studies. 

•	 Initiate national sample-based assessment upon ICR approval. 

The agreed-to completion date for these actions was December 31, 2009. The OW 

indicated that they have not proposed rescheduled completion dates for -- developing the 

ICR and completing a national sample-based assessment -- because they plan to request 

modifications to these corrective actions with the OIG. OW feels that the relevance of 

the ICR to the TMDL implementation survey is questionable. If the ICR is no longer 

essential to the implementation survey as originally conceived, OW could potentially 

request that the ICR’s development be withdrawn as a corrective action. OW also stated 

that the value-added worth of a national TMDL implementation survey, estimated to cost 

$400,000 or more in 2007, is also questionable given improved knowledge about 

implementation and budgetary constraints. OW’s position is that the survey would not be 

cost effective and should be withdrawn as a corrective action. 

19
 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OECA 

Report Title: Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in Selected 

Federal Agencies 

Report No.: 2007-P-00027 

Date Issued: 06/20/07 

Report Summary 

Federal regulatory agencies with missions and obstacles similar to EPA use statistical methods to 

generate compliance information. They use this information to monitor their enforcement and 

compliance programs and to demonstrate program results. These federal programs extensively 

use statistical methods to identify and analyze risk, set goals, develop strategies to manage the 

most significant risks, and report their accomplishments. We performed this review to collect 

successful practices from federal agencies similar to OECA that extensively use statistical 

methods, including random sampling, to measure and ensure compliance and to monitor 

regulatory programs. While the programs the OIG reviewed face similar obstacles as OECA, 

they use practical approaches to overcome these obstacles that OECA could potentially apply to 

its programs. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 2-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA establish a 

plan of action with milestones to incorporate using statistical methods to demonstrate the results 

of EPA’s enforcement and compliance strategies. 

Status: OECA agreed to develop an action plan to expand the use of statistically valid 

compliance rates for specific noncompliance patterns focused on national priorities or 

other important problem areas. The agreed-to completion date for this corrective action 

was December 31, 2008. 

20
 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OSWER 

Report Title: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources 

Report No.: 2006-P-00013 

Date Issued: 02/28/2006 

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alignment of offices that support the Superfund program and production of program performance 

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

managing program resources. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

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

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

achieving program goals. 

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

Two planned corrective actions addressed this recommendation. To support management 

decision making, EPA modified Superfund E-Facts to reflect Superfund site cost data. 

The module is available for use by EPA staff. This action is considered completed. 

OCFO is determining if the Agency’s new centralized financial management system will 

solve the accounting definition issue. If not, OCFO may consider having system 

adjustments made. The new centralized system is planned to be operational by 

October 1, 2010. 

21
 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OPPTS 

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

Food Quality Protection Act 

Report No.: 2006-P-00009 

Date Issued: 01/10/2006 

Report Summary 

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

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

health. This report is the second in a series of three reports on the Act’s impact on EPA 

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

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

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

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

exposure on the developing nervous system 

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

pesticide exposure data to aggregate risks 

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

cumulative risk assessments 

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

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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 (NHANES) become available in 2006. EPA should also update the Food Commodity 

Intake Database (FCID) 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 has continued to collaborate with our partners in the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) to transition to the new consumption data. OPP met with 

USDA’s Human Nutrition Survey in December 2007 regarding using this food 

consumption database to develop the requisite food commodity consumption database, 

FCID. In 2008, OPP began discussions on a variety of statistical issues with USDA’s 

survey statisticians on the appropriate methods for combining NHANES survey cycles. 

At that time, OPP decided to adjust its pace in this area to allow us to obtain more years 

of data from the NHANES survey such that the resulting database includes more survey 

respondents and is more robust. In 2009, OPP met with personnel from USDA’s Nutrient 

Data Laboratory and completed the majority of the recipe work. Also in 2009, OPP 

began working with ORD’s National Center for Environmental Assessment and OW to 

incorporate the updated FCID into our exposure and risk assessment software. The 

agreed-to completion date was December 31, 2006. OPP anticipates completing the 

actions for this recommendation by summer 2010. 

22
 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products 

Report No.: 2006-P-00007 

Date Issued: 12/16/2005 

Report Summary 

Toxaphene in the environment changes, or degrades. The resulting degradation products are 

different from the original toxaphene in chemical composition and how they appear to testing 

instruments, so they could go unreported. The analytical methods EPA uses to identify and 

measure toxaphene are not designed to identify toxaphene degradation products. However, a 

new testing method used by others specifically tests for toxaphene degradation products. We 

believe EPA should validate, approve, and use this method. Certain toxaphene degradation 

products accumulate inside people. Although studies indicate that some of these degradation 

products may be harmful, more research is needed to determine how much of a risk these 

products pose to people. The report recommendations were reported to OA, OW, OSWER and 

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

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Administrator direct the Assistant Administrators 

for ORD, OW and OSWER to arrange for specific research into the dangers of tumors (i.e., 

cancer) and of harm to embryos posed principally by a mixture of toxaphene congeners and 

metabolites found in fish. 

Status: OW anticipated completing the third Contaminant Candidate List by August 31, 

2009. 

23
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OAR 

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

Permits If Program Goals Are to Be Fully Realized 

Report No.: 2005-P-00010 

Date Issued: 03/09/2005 

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Recommendation 2-2 addresses this issue.) 

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

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

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

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

programs; however, areas needing further improvement remain. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

issue guidance or rulemaking on annual compliance certification content which requires 

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

as appropriate. 

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

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

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

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

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

OIG for approval. 

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

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

certifications and including credible evidence. 

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

Agency met with the OIG in July 2009 and is providing additional information. The OIG 

believes this recommendation is key to knowing the basis of the permittee’s reported 

compliance with the terms and conditions of its Title V permit that underlies its annual 

compliance certification. 

1

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

24
 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

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 met with the OIG in July 2009 and is providing additional information. The OIG 

believes this issue involves basic program criteria needed for EPA to oversee the Title V 

program. 

25
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

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 National 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 (POTWs) 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 Recommendation 

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 POTW 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 POTW 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 we transition 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 it in 

developing pretreatment results-based measurements. The agreed-to completion date for 

this corrective action was September 30, 2007. 

26
 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows 

Report No: 2002-P-00012 

Date Issued: 08/26/2002 

Report Summary 

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are the total discharges into waterbodies of untreated 

domestic, commercial, industrial waste, wastewater, and storm water runoff, which can adversely 

affect the health of humans, animals, and aquatic organisms, as well as cause beach closings and 

fishing and recreational restrictions. We found that many communities do not as yet have the 

data to determine the effect of CSO controls on water quality. Most communities were only 

monitoring the number, volume, and duration of CSO discharges, and did not have data on the 

effect CSO controls were having on the quality of receiving waters. This was because EPA does 

not require monitoring until completion of CSO projects. Consequently, it could not be 

determined until it was too late whether each CSO project being undertaken was a wise 

investment of taxpayers’ dollars. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 5-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW work with CSO 

permitting authorities and communities to assure they negotiate and establish the proper level of 

interim monitoring of CSO efforts to determine the impact of the project on water quality. 

Status: OW agreed to initiate an effort at EPA Headquarters to develop a compilation of 

the monitoring approaches that are or may be used in different situations. This 

compilation, which will be available in Fiscal Year 2009, will help permit writers 

develop appropriate monitoring expectations for those permitees that have completed 

construction of their planned CSO controls. In August 2008, EPA reached a settlement 

filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that requires EPA to 

complete studies and develop new recreational water quality criteria by October 2012. 

The agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2009. 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Appendix A 

OIG Reports with 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

by Program Office

as of March 31, 2010 

OA 

09-P-0089, EPA Needs a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to Fulfill Its Emerging Climate Change Role 

OAR 

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

Are to Be Fully Realized 

OARM 

09-P-0242, Contractor Invoice Internal Controls Need Improvement 

09-P-0229, EPA Should Stop Providing Estimates of Total Labor Hours to Contractors 

09-P-0197, EPA Should Delay Deploying Its New Acquisition System until Testing Is Completed 

OCFO 

09-P-0203, EPA Should Use FMFIA to Improve Programmatic Operations 

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

OECA 

08-P-0141, EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements 

2007-P-00027, Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in Selected 

Federal Agencies 

OPPTS 

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

Act 

ORD 

09-P-0232, EPA’s Office of Research and Development Could Better Use the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity 

Act to Improve Operations 

09-P-0089, EPA Needs a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to Fulfill Its Emerging Climate Change Role 

28 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

OSWER 

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

OW 

09-P-0223, EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality 

08-P-0266, EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight 

2007-P-00036, Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate 

Environmental Results 

2006-P-00007, More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products 

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

2002-P-00012, Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Appendix B 

Unimplemented Recommendations

10/28/09 Compendium Compared to Current Compendium 

Continuing Unimplemented Recommendations 

08-P-0266, EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight (Recommendation 2-3) 

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

(Recommendation 18) 

2007-P-00027, Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in Selected 

Federal Agencies (Recommendation 2-1) 

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

Act (Recommendation 4-1)
 

2006-P-00007, More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products (Recommendation 2) 

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

Are to Be Fully Realized (Recommendations 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1)
 

2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program (Recommendation 4-1) 

New Unimplemented Recommendations 

09-P-0242, Contractor Invoice Internal Controls Need Improvement (Recommendations 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 3-1, 3-2)
 

09-P-0232, EPA’s Office of Research and Development Could Better Use the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity
 

Act to Improve Operations (Recommendation 2-3)
 

09-P-0229, EPA Should Stop Providing Estimates of Total Labor Hours to Contractors (Recommendations 1, 2)
 

09-P-0223, EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality (Recommendations 2-3, 2-4, 

2-5)
 

09-P-0203, EPA Should Use FMFIA to Improve Programmatic Operations (Recommendation 3)
 

09-P-0197, EPA Should Delay Deploying Its New Acquisition System until Testing Is Completed
 

(Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4) 

09-P-0089, EPA Needs a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to Fulfill Its Emerging Climate Change Role 

(Recommendations 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5)
 

08-P-0141, EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements (Recommendation 3)
 

2007-P-00036, Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate 

Environmental Results (Recommendation 1-2) 

2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources (Recommendation 2-3)
 

2002-P-00012, Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows 

(Recommendation 5-1) 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 

(Report No. 10-N-0114) 

Removed Unimplemented Recommendations 

09-P-0129, EPA Can Improve Managing of Working Capital Fund Overhead Costs (Recommendations 1, 3) 

09-P-0119, Improved Management of Superfund Special Accounts Will Make More Funds Available for Clean-ups
 

(Recommendation 4)
 

09-P-0097, Results of Technical Network Vulnerability Assessment: EPA Headquarters (Recommendations 1, 2, 

3) 

09-P-0055, Results of Technical Network Vulnerability Assessment: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Campus 

(Recommendations 1, 2, 3) 

09-P-0029, EPA’s Safety Determination for Delatte Metals Superfund Site Was Unsupported (Recommendations 

2-2, 2-4)
 

09-1-0026, Audit of EPA’s Fiscal 2008 and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements (Recommendation 27) 

08-P-0265, EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reduce Unliquidated Obligations in Brownfields Pilot Grants
 

(Recommendation 3) 

08-P-0235, EPA Decisions to Delete Superfund Sites Should Undergo Quality Assurance Review 

(Recommendations 2-4, 2-5, 3-1)
 

08-P-0199, EPA Needs to Better Report Chesapeake Bay Challenges – A Summary Report (Recommendation 1)
 

08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money (Recommendation 2)
 

08-P-0049, Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay
 

Watershed (Recommendation 2-4) 

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

(Recommendation 12) 

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

(Recommendation 3-1) 

2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software (Recommendations 9, 17) 

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

(Recommendation 2-1) 

2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina: Future Improvement 

Opportunities Exist (Recommendation 4-1(bullet 5)) 

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

(Recommendations 3-1, 3-2)
 

2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources (Recommendation 2-3) 

2005-P-00011, Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA’s Remote Access Methods Need Improvement 

(Recommendations 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4)
 

2004-P-00013, EPA’s Administration of Network Firewalls Needs Improvement (Recommendations 2-1, 3-2)
 

31