U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Congressional Testimony 

The Clean Water Act after 37 

Years: Recommitting to the 

Protection of the Nation’s 

Waters 

Statement of Wade T. Najjum 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

 October 15, 2009 
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am 

Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). I am 

pleased to be here today to discuss some of the challenges facing EPA that bears on its 

ability to effectively manage, oversee, and enforce environmental laws, including the 

Clean Water Act. 

Over the years the OIG has issued numerous reports that pertain to aspects of the 

Clean Water Act ranging from EPA’s oversight of major facilities in long-term 

significant noncompliance; efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes; 

and delays in establishing water quality standards for nutrients. Some of these reports are 

summarized at the end of my statement. We also have a significant body of work 

addressing enforcement and related issues in other EPA program areas. While this 

hearing is focused on clean water, I mention other program areas because the OIG 

believes that there are common roots to many of the problems we identified in other 

media that bear on clean water management and enforcement. 

EPA and the Clean Water Act 

Steps taken by EPA and others under the Clean Water Act have resulted in 

significant improvement in the nation’s waters over what they would have been without 

this law. EPA has led a change in the nation’s attitude toward protecting our rivers and 

streams. Billions of dollars are spent annually by companies and federal, State, and local 

governments to work toward the goals that Congress established 37 years ago. As a 

result, significant amounts of pollutants from factories and wastewater treatment plants 

are now removed before discharges reach rivers and streams; and many water bodies 

have been made safe for fishing and swimming. 

Despite these accomplishments, the full potential of the Clean Water Act has not 

been realized. For example, when I spoke before the Subcommittee on Water Resources 

and Environment last year, I discussed gaps in clean water protections that inhibit 

attainment of clean water goals for the Chesapeake Bay. Also, we are currently 

evaluating EPA’s wetlands program and are finding issues that impair its ability to 

effectively enforce the program. 

Management Challenges that Impede Effective Management and Enforcement 

Every year the OIG issues a listing of management challenges facing EPA based 

on OIG work performed and additional analysis of EPA operations. Management 

challenges are defined as a lack of capability derived from internal self-imposed 

constraints or, more likely, externally imposed constraints that prevent an organization 

from reacting effectively to a changing environment. In April 2009, the OIG identified 

10 key management challenges for Fiscal Year 2009. Three of those challenges impact 

EPA’s management and enforcement capability: 

 EPA’s organization and infrastructure; 

 Oversight of delegations to States; and 

 Performance measurement. 

1
 
In the remainder of my testimony I will present our conclusions about how these 

challenges impact EPA's management and enforcement capability with reference to some 

of the reports that we have issued in recent years. It should be noted that EPA has 

addressed some of the specific findings as a result of adopting the recommendations 

contained in those reports. However, we believe that the underlying issues persist. 

EPA’s Organization and Infrastructure 

In July 1970, the first EPA Administrator formally organized EPA based upon 

existing environmental legislation that encompassed discrete media programs for water, 

air, pesticides, radiation, and solid waste, as well as 10 regional offices and a laboratory 

structure inherited from other federal agencies. However, President Nixon’s Advisory 

Council on Executive Organization, also known as the Ash Council, recommended 

organizing EPA according to functional categories (e.g., monitoring, research, standardsetting, enforcement, assistance) rather than along media lines (e.g., air, water, land). 

This recommended organizational approach was intended to recognize the interrelated 

nature of pollution problems, acknowledge that pollutants cut across media lines, 

encourage balanced budget and priority decisions between component functions, and 

permit more effective evaluations of total program performance. 

However, the realities of environmental legislation made this type of integration 

difficult and would require an incremental, three-phased approach. The first phase of 

EPA organization was dominated by its discrete medium orientation. The second phase 

followed a hybrid functional/media structure similar to EPA’s current organization. 

Finally, the third phase would eliminate the media-oriented program offices in favor of 

the functional units recommended by the Ash Council. This was never realized. Studies 

we reviewed indicate that EPA’s failure to move to this third phase may hinder EPA’s 

ability to effectively enforce and oversee environmental laws. 

OIG work has also shown that EPA’s organization has impeded achievement of 

environmental goals and efficient use of resources. Recurring themes include: inadequate 

coordination between EPA headquarters offices; inconsistencies in enforcement among 

EPA’s Regions; inadequate national (Agency) guidance, procedures, or priorities on 

programs; a lack of strategic plans that link program missions, goals, and performance 

measures; and decentralized management contributing to allocation and resource 

management problems. For example: 

	 In a review of EPA’s Drinking Water Program, it was unclear whether the Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) was adequately coordinating 

its efforts with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW). 

OECA reported that it has “substantive, regular, and consistent” coordination with 

OGWDW on both rule development and enforcement, while other sources 

indicated that OECA’s enforcement priorities may be out of alignment with those 

of OGWDW. 

	 In a review that assessed EPA’s oversight and assistance of tribal community 

water systems, we found that the five Regions we reviewed varied in the quality 

of oversight they provided to tribal community water systems. One Region failed 

2
 
to monitor for certain contaminants, chose not to enter known monitoring 

violations into the Safe Drinking Water Information System, and did not conduct 

enforcement actions against the systems that committed these violations. 

	 EPA relies heavily on guidance to communicate Agency policy and regulations. 

OIG work has shown a culture in EPA that treats guidance as non-binding to 

parties, including EPA Regions, and accepting of guidance that is incomplete, 

draft, or interim. This could lead to inconsistent implementation and impede 

EPA’s ability to effectively enforce necessary actions since private parties may 

perceive unfairness and the absence of boundaries on their activities. 

	 In a review of the Border 2012 Program, a joint U.S.-Mexico effort to improve 

the environment and protect the health of people living along the border, we 

found that success varied across the different media areas as well as by leadership 

despite a program structure aimed at reducing stove-piping. Program 

implementation varied depending on the Region. There was no systematic 

roadmap that defined the relationships between resources, activities, and intended 

outcomes; nor were there management controls to ensure that results were 

documented or that goals were being achieved. 

	 An OIG review found that EPA’s decentralized management of the Superfund 

program contributes to allocation and resource management problems. EPA 

spreads its Superfund appropriation across a variety of offices and Regions. This 

has limited EPA’s opportunities to effectively manage Superfund resources for 

cleanup. 

Oversight of Delegations to the States 

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish its 

mission, EPA develops regulations and establishes programs that implement 

environmental laws. These programs may be delegated to State, local, and tribal agencies 

that request to take primacy of the program. Delegation, however, does not relieve EPA 

of its statutory and trust responsibilities for protecting human health and the environment. 

EPA performs oversight of State, local, and tribal programs in an effort to provide 

reasonable assurance that delegated programs are achieving their goals. EPA does not 

have the resources to effectively administer all its responsibilities directly. EPA relies 

heavily on local, State, and tribal agencies for compliance and enforcement and to obtain 

performance data. In its FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, EPA states it 

delegated the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing 

compliance to the States and tribes. 

A critical management challenge to EPA is oversight of its delegations to States. 

Federal environmental statutes grant EPA a significant role in implementing the intent of 

the law, and also authorize a substantial role for States. However, quality data is often 

lacking to ensure that the intent of the law is met. Also, Federal requirements establish 

consistency for businesses and within industries nationwide. States’ discretion adds 

flexibility to address specific circumstances and local issues. However, joint 

3
 
implementation and enforcement leads to special challenges in interpretations, strategies, 

and priorities. 

Our evaluations have shown that EPA’s oversight of State programs requires 

improvement for several reasons. These include inconsistent enforcement guidance 

interpretation; States and Regions not meeting minimum reporting requirements; 

differing standards for State delegation agreements among the Regions; disagreements on 

enforcement priorities between OECA and the Regions; inaccurate data systems; and 

internal control deficiencies. For example: 

	 We found that EPA did not provide effective enforcement oversight of major 

facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits 

in long-term significant noncompliance. EPA inconsistently applied guidance 

defining timely formal enforcement actions. Also, EPA guidance did not provide 

meaningful direction on what constitutes “appropriate” actions. Timely and 

appropriate formal enforcement actions are important to minimize additional 

pollutants from being discharged into the nation’s waters to ensure protection of 

human health and the environment. We estimated that up to 51 million pounds of 

excess pollutant loads were discharged during our review period by 44 facilities 

reviewed, representing loads that could have been minimized. 

	 EPA and States did not maintain complete and accurate records of NPDES 

compliance and enforcement activities. Many Region and State files were 

incomplete, and data in EPA’s information systems were incomplete and 

inaccurate. Further, Regions and States did not report inspection-related 

violations in EPA’s Permit Compliance System. An accurate history of the 

compliance and enforcement activities at a facility is important for oversight and 

making future enforcement decisions. The lack of accurate information inhibits 

EPA’s ability to provide effective oversight to NPDES major facilities and thus 

protect human health and the environment from excess levels of toxic or harmful 

pollutants. 

	 We found Regions and States did not always oversee industrial users discharging 

into wastewater treatment plants without approved programs. EPA was working 

on developing guidance for overseeing categorical and significant industrial users 

discharging to plants without approved programs, but had put it off due to other 

priorities. 

	 In a review of EPA’s oversight and assistance of tribal community water systems, 

we found internal control deficiencies existed in administering EPA’s oversight in 

some of the Regions we reviewed. To varying degrees, tribal drinking water 

records were incomplete due to a failure to maintain oversight of system 

operations and/or poor records management. Internal controls are an important 

safeguard for ensuring that systems operate as intended. Deficiencies in these 

controls may indicate that the systems are vulnerable to failure, resulting in 

increased risk to public health. 

4
 
Performance Measurement 

EPA has been recognized for its efforts to align its budgeting, planning, and 

accounting systems to track and report on resource use. However, EPA continues to be 

challenged in measuring the human health and environmental results of its environmental 

programs. Despite the vast array of data reported and contained in EPA’s information 

systems, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the States, regulated entities, and 

EPA have pointed out that the Agency does not have much of the information it needs 

pertaining to environmental conditions and trends and the potential human health risks of 

various pollutants. This makes it difficult to evaluate and report on the benefits derived 

from environmental activities and make optimal decisions about how to invest EPA’s 

resources to maximize environmental results. 

Our reviews have shown EPA to have flawed performance measurements for 

several reasons. These include activity-based rather than performance-based metrics; 

inadequate performance measures; inaccurate reporting on performance results; and an 

inability to enforce performance reporting at the State level. For example: 

	 We evaluated the combined sewer overflow (CSO) enforcement priority area 

strategy in our 2008 review of OECA's strategic priorities. We found that EPA’s 

primary focus was to ensure that communities representing significant population 

centers were making appropriate progress towards addressing CSO problems and 

violations. However, the CSO strategy did not contain long-term or annual 

outcome performance measures of success. Without outcome measures that 

contain targets and timeframes, EPA could not gauge whether the pace of 

progress was satisfactory. It also did not measure the resources EPA expends on 

this and the other priority areas. The lack of input measures prevents EPA from 

assessing the cost effectiveness of its programs. 

	 Our review of EPA’s pretreatment program showed it did not have the 

information systems necessary to effectively measure, analyze, demonstrate, and 

improve pretreatment program performance. EPA’s pretreatment measures have 

been activity-based to show compliance with program regulations or that 

compliance mechanisms are in place, rather than noting the impact of the program 

on the environment. 

	 Our review of EPA’s backlog of NPDES permits found that the backlog measures 

did not provide an accurate view of the status of the permit program or an 

adequate measure of environmental results. These measures did not properly 

compare progress against baselines, and the measures focused on outputs (tasks 

performed) rather than outcomes (environmental results achieved). Therefore, 

they were not useful for making management decisions. 

	 We reported on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and found that 

TMDL and surface water quality performance measures did not provide clear and 

complete metrics of the program’s accomplishments. Since the TMDL program 

did not have any outcome measures, we reviewed the two TMDL output measures 

along with two of EPA’s annually reported surface water quality measures that 

5
 
were broader than, but related to, the TMDL program. All of these measures 

were unclear, and some were inconsistently reported in EPA’s publications. 

	 Our review of EPA’s watershed approach found that EPA did not develop 

measures to evaluate key programs and activities, including implementation of 

some core water programs on a watershed basis. Further, while EPA’s national 

outcome measures were relevant, they were not understandable, comparable, and 

reliable. Without these improvements, the ability of EPA’s performance 

measurement system to convey useful information on EPA’s strategy to improve 

water quality on a watershed basis will be hampered. 

	 We found that OECA’s 2005 publicly-reported Government Performance and 

Results Act performance measures did not effectively characterize changes in 

compliance or other outcomes because OECA lacked compliance rates and other 

reliable outcome data. In the absence of compliance rates, OECA reports proxies 

for compliance to the public and does not know if compliance is actually going up 

or down. As a result, OECA did not have all of the data it needed to make 

management and program decisions. 

	 Our review of EPA’s voluntary programs showed weaknesses in their current data 

collection and reporting systems – caused by limited, unverified, and anonymous 

data reporting. These systems are neither transparent nor verifiable, and are 

limited by anonymous reporting and use of third party industry data. As a result, 

the reported accomplishments of these voluntary programs may be based on 

unreliable data. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, EPA’s ability to effectively manage, oversee, and enforce the 

environmental laws under its jurisdiction, including the Clean Water Act, has been 

impeded by several factors including its current organizational structure, how it oversees 

State delegated authorities, and limitations in performance measurements. On the 37th 

anniversary of the Clean Water Act, we believe that a recommitment to the protection of 

the nation’s waters can be achieved by an EPA that is strategically aligned to uniformly 

enforce environmental statutes and provide consistent oversight of its Regions and State 

delegations. This will require a comprehensive review of EPA’s current organization and 

a commitment to implement best practices. The OIG is ready to assist in this effort. We 

are continuing to monitor these issues. We are also currently in the midst of establishing 

a product line that will focus on reviewing EPA’s organization and management practices 

and making recommendations that will help the Agency more effectively accomplish its 

mission. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions the Committee may have. 

6
 
Attachment 

Summaries of Selected 

EPA Office of Inspector General Reports 

on the Clean Water Act Since 2001 

EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up the Great 

Lakes Areas of Concern 

09-P-0231 

September 14, 2009 

Since 2004, EPA has completed five Legacy Act-funded contaminated sediment 

clean-ups and remediated approximately 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated 

sediment. However, EPA is challenged by the overall extent of the contaminated 

sediment problem in the Great Lakes areas of concern (AOCs). EPA is the 

designated lead Agency for the clean-ups; however, we found EPA does not have 

a regime for coordinating remediation activities across its program offices as well 

as with States, localities, and other stakeholders. While some results have been 

achieved in cleaning up individual sediment sites, EPA has not developed or 

implemented a coordinated approach to manage clean-ups. 

EPA does not know the full extent of the contaminated sediment problem. 

Accurate sediment estimates for more than 30 percent of the remediation sites 

remain unknown. Potential Great Lakes Legacy Act clean-up sites have an 

estimated federal cost of $2.25 billion. Local partners will have to come up with a 

total of $1.21 billion in non-federal matching funds before Legacy Act assistance 

is provided. We estimate that at the current rate of progress, it may take more than 

77 years to complete all of these clean-ups. Moreover, remediation will be 

conducted in the order that individual local governments and stakeholders can 

afford, rather than with regard to the risks posed to human health or the 

environment. Without improved management, coordination, and accountability, 

EPA will not succeed in achieving the results intended for the AOC program. 

EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient 

Water Quality Standards 

09-P-0223 

August 26, 2009 

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 waters that were 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 

7
 
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 if it should set the standards. EPA also needs to establish 

effective monitoring and measures so that accurate program progress is reported. 

This will assist EPA management in program decision-making. 

Congressionally Requested Report on Comments 

Related to Effects of Jurisdictional Uncertainty on Clean 

Water Act Implementation 

09-N-0149 

April 30, 2009 

During our interviews, while conducting the wetlands enforcement evaluation, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and State wetlands staff spoke about a variety of impacts to their 

programs caused by the Rapanos decision (Rapanos v. United States). This 

information was not verified or substantiated by Office of Inspector General 

(OIG). The OIG did not analyze its content or draw any conclusions from this 

information. 

Overall, CWA enforcement activities [for Sections 311 (oil spills), 402 (National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), and 404] have decreased since the 

Rapanos ruling. An estimated total of 489 enforcement cases (Sections 311, 402, 

and 404 combined) have been affected such that formal enforcement was not 

pursued as a result of jurisdictional uncertainty, case priority was lowered as a 

result of jurisdictional uncertainty, or lack of jurisdiction was asserted as an 

affirmative defense to an enforcement action. 

EPA Has Initiated Strategic Planning for Priority 

Enforcement Areas, but Key Elements Still Needed 

08-P-0278

 September 25, 2008 

OECA has instituted a process for strategic planning in its national enforcement 

priority areas. It has developed strategic planning guidance and a strategy 

template to facilitate continual review and improvement of the strategies. The 

Fiscal Years 2008-2010 strategic plans we reviewed, for air toxics, combined 

sewer overflows, and mineral processing, contain an overall goal, a problem 

statement, a description of the current status of the priority area, anticipated 

environmental benefits, the facilities to be addressed, the tools to be used, and 

OECA Headquarters and regional responsibilities. 

However, each of the plans is missing key elements to monitor progress and 

accomplishments and efficiently utilize Agency resources. All three strategies 

lack a full range of measures to monitor progress and achievements. Two 

strategies lack detailed exit plans. Additionally, the combined sewer overflow 

strategy does not address the States’ key roles in attaining the strategy’s overall 

8
 
goal. The absence of these elements hinders OECA from monitoring progress and 

achieving desired results in a timely and efficient manner. 

EPA Needs to Better Report Chesapeake Bay 

Challenges: A Summary Report 

08-P-0199 

July 14, 2008 

Despite many noteworthy accomplishments by the Chesapeake Bay partners, the 

Bay remains degraded. This has resulted in continuing threats to aquatic life and 

human health, and citizens being deprived of the Bay’s full economic and 

recreational benefits. Through its reporting responsibilities, EPA could better 

advise Congress and the Chesapeake Bay community that (a) the Bay program is 

significantly short of its goals and (b) partners need to make major changes if 

goals are to be met. Current efforts will not enable partners to meet their goal of 

restoring the Bay by 2010. Further, new challenges are emerging. Bay partners 

need to address: 

 uncontrolled land development 

 limited implementation of agricultural conservation practices 

 limited control over air emissions affecting Bay water quality 

EPA does not have the resources, tools, or authorities to fully address all of these 

challenges. Farm policies, local land development decisions, and individual life 

styles have huge impacts on the amount of pollution being discharged to the Bay. 

EPA needs to further engage local governments and watershed organizations in 

efforts to clean up the Bay. 

Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of 

Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed 

08-P-0049 

January 8, 2008 

Chesapeake Bay wastewater treatment facilities risk not meeting the 2010 

deadline for nutrient reductions if key facilities are not upgraded in time. In the 7 

years since signing the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, EPA and its State partners 

have taken a number of steps to lay the foundation for achieving the 2010 

wastewater nutrient reduction goals. Water quality standards have been set, 

nutrient loadings have been allocated, and nutrient limits are beginning to be 

incorporated into permits. However, States need to finish adding nutrient limits to 

the permits, and the facilities will need to make significant reductions by 2010. 

Crucially, these reductions will need to be maintained once achieved. Significant 

challenges include generating sufficient funding and addressing continuing 

population growth. EPA needs to better monitor progress to ensure needed 

upgrades occur on time and loading reductions are achieved and maintained. 

Otherwise, Bay waters will continue to be impaired. 

9
 
Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data 

and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results 

2007-P-00036

 September 19, 2007 

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. Although EPA and States are responsible for 

implementing point source TMDLs, EPA cannot identify all of the permitted 

dischargers that should receive or have received wasteload allocations. Measuring 

nonpoint source TMDL implementation is difficult because it is highly dependent 

on State and local stakeholders, and EPA does not have statutory authority to 

regulate nonpoint sources. EPA's lack of information prevents the Agency from 

determining if TMDL implementation activities are occurring in a timely manner, 

and the extent to which TMDLs are restoring impaired waters. 

EPA measures the pace at which TMDLs are developed and approved. For the 

last 2 years, EPA and States have exceeded goals for these measures. EPA has 

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

sponsored several studies of TMDL implementation, and is studying additional 

TMDL results measures. Developing meaningful measures of the environmental 

results of water quality programs 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 surface water quality performance measures we reviewed do not 

provide clear and complete metrics of the program’s accomplishments. Since the 

TMDL program did not have any outcome measures, we reviewed the two TMDL 

output measures along with two of EPA’s annually reported surface water quality 

measures that are broader than, but related to, the TMDL program. All of these 

measures are unclear, and some are inconsistently reported in EPA’s publications. 

Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed 

Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay 

2007-P-00031 

September 10, 2007 

EPA and its Chesapeake Bay watershed partners will not meet load reduction 

goals for developed lands by 2010 as established in the Chesapeake 2000 

agreement. In fact, new development is increasing nutrient and sediment loads at 

rates faster than restoration efforts are reducing them. Developed lands contribute 

less than one-third of the Bay loads but would require about two-thirds of the 

overall estimated restoration costs. Consequently, EPA and its Bay partners 

focused on more cost-effective approaches, such as upgrading wastewater 

facilities and implementing agricultural best practices. Additional challenges 

impeding progress include: 

 Lack of community-level loading caps. 

 Shortage of up-to-date information on development patterns. 

 Ineffective use of regulatory programs to achieve reductions. 

10
 
 Limited information and guidance on planning and applying 

environmentally sensitive development practices. 

 Limited funding available for costly practices. 

A cost-effective start to reversing the trend of increasing loads from developed 

land is for communities to concentrate on new development. Opportunities 

abound for EPA to show greater leadership in identifying practices that result in 

no-net increases in nutrient and sediment loads from new development and 

assisting communities in implementing these practices. If communities do not 

sufficiently address runoff from new development, loads from developed lands 

will continue to increase rather than diminish. 

Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Generally Comply with Major Clean Water Act Permits 

2007-P-00032 

September 5, 2007 

Overall, EPA and the States are doing well managing how major federal facilities 

comply with their NPDES permits. In EPA’s last reporting period (2004), major 

federal facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed had a lower rate of Significant 

Noncompliance than other federal and non-federal major-permit facilities 

nationwide. EPA and States have a variety of formal and informal tools available 

to enforce federal facility compliance with NPDES permits. These tools included: 

multimedia, voluntary agreement, and media press release approaches; Notices of 

Violation; an administrative order; and a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement. 

Also, EPA developed the Wastewater Integrated Strategy, which seeks to 

eliminate federal facility Significant Noncompliance with NPDES permit limits. 

EPA also worked with the Department of Defense to make NPDES permit 

compliance a higher priority at military installations (eight of the nine federal 

facilities with major NPDES permits are at military installations). We made no 

recommendations in this report. 

Assessment of EPA’s Projected Pollutant Reductions 

Resulting from Enforcement Actions and Settlements 

2007-B-00002

 July 24, 2007 

The accuracy and reliability of EPA’s projected pollutant reductions for Fiscal 

Years 2003-2006 were dependent on the specific program in which the 

enforcement action took place. For example, more reliable data were available to 

project reductions from oil spill and power plant cases than other Clean Water Act 

(CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) cases, respectively. EPA has improved its 

internal control process for ensuring more accurate pollutant reduction estimates 

from concluded enforcement cases. The accuracy of estimated reductions from 

CWA enforcement actions has likely improved as a result of these internal control 

changes. However, we noted some inconsistencies in the calculation of projected 

CAA emission reductions. For example, three of the six power plant cases we 

reviewed did not include estimates for particulate matter reductions, thereby 

underreporting reductions. Also, different methodologies were used to estimate 

post-compliance emissions from power plant cases. Further, three of the six 

11
 
regions we surveyed did not independently review the basis for the projected 

reductions for some CAA cases as called for by OECA’s guidance. 

EPA’s annual projected reductions were heavily influenced by a few large cases. 

Less than 1 percent of the CWA cases accounted for 52 percent of the projected 

pollutant reductions from concluded CWA enforcement actions. Similarly, a few 

large power plant cases resulted in a marked increase in total estimated CAArelated reductions for Fiscal Years 2004-2005. For example, two power plant 

cases accounted for over 600 million pounds in reductions, about 78 percent of 

the Fiscal Year 2004 total. 

Facilities were on target to meet the projected reductions for the CAA cases we 

reviewed. However, it will take years to complete all corrective actions in these 

cases. Consequently, we could not determine whether they had achieved their 

total projected reductions. Projected reductions have already been achieved for at 

least one CWA case, and other CWA cases were making progress toward meeting 

their projected reductions. EPA’s 2006 Annual Report used terms such as 

“achieved,” “reduced,” and “actual” to describe emission reductions for that year 

even though the reductions were often only projected amounts, since it can take 

years for reductions to occur. OECA agreed to use more precise wording in future 

reports. 

Better Enforcement Oversight Needed for Major 

Facilities with Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term 

Significant Noncompliance 

2007-P-00023 

May 14, 2007 

EPA did not provide effective enforcement oversight of major facilities with 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits in long-term significant 

noncompliance. While flexibility is required in a national program, EPA 

inconsistently applied guidance defining timely formal actions. Also, EPA 

guidance did not provide meaningful direction on what constitutes “appropriate” 

actions. Moreover, for 21 of 56 facilities reviewed, EPA and States did not take 

suitable formal enforcement actions to address all instances of significant 

noncompliance. At the remaining 35 facilities, none of the actions we could assess 

were timely based on criteria in EPA’s Enforcement Management System. 

EPA and States also did not maintain complete and accurate records of National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System compliance and enforcement activities. 

Many region and State files were incomplete, and data in EPA’s information 

systems were incomplete and inaccurate. Further, regions and States did not 

report inspection-related violations in EPA’s Permit Compliance System. We also 

noted that bacteria exceedances are not required to be reported as significant 

noncompliances. 

Timely actions could help minimize the millions of pounds of excess pollutants 

released by these facilities. We estimate that up to 51 million pounds of excess 

pollutant loads were discharged from July 2002 through June 2005 by 44 facilities 

reviewed, representing loads that could be minimized. 

12
 
EPA Relying on Clean Air Act Regulations to 

Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay 

and Its Watershed 

2007-P-00009 

February 28, 2007 

CBPO is relying on anticipated nitrogen deposition reductions from Clean Air Act 

regulations already issued by EPA, combined with anticipated reductions from 

other non-air sources, to meet water quality goals for the Bay watershed. EPA 

believes these activities will provide sufficient nitrogen deposition reduction to 

enable the Bay to meet its overall nitrogen cap load, assuming non-air activities 

achieve planned reductions. EPA estimates that Clean Air Act regulations already 

issued will reduce nitrogen that falls directly into the Bay, as well as nitrogen 

deposited to the Bay watershed, by 19.6 million pounds annually by 2010. Even 

greater reductions should occur as States undertake additional measures in the 

next few years to meet the ozone and fine particulate matter standards. State and 

EPA strategies do not include additional air reduction activities specifically 

designed to clean up the Bay, although many State activities should have the cobenefit of reducing nitrogen deposition in the Bay. 

If additional reductions in air emissions are needed to clean up the Bay, one 

potentially significant source of deposition not currently controlled is ammonia 

emissions from animal feeding operations. The magnitude of these emissions to 

nitrogen deposition in the Bay is uncertain. Ammonia emissions monitoring of 

animal feeding operations, expected to begin in the spring or early summer of 

2008, should provide data to help EPA better determine the amount of such 

emissions from farming operations. 

Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better 

Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural 

Resources 

2007-P-00004 

November 20, 2006 

State-level partners have committed the agricultural community to making 

nutrient reductions, but numerous practices abound and are generally performed 

on a voluntary basis. Few of the agricultural practices in the tributary strategies 

have been implemented because the agricultural community considers many of 

these practices as either being unprofitable or requiring significant changes in 

farming techniques. Although the State-level partners have provided substantial 

funding to implement these practices, one of the key State partners acknowledged 

substantial additional funding is still needed. At the federal level, applications for 

USDA’s technical and financial assistance programs went unfunded, making it 

difficult to expand incentives for Bay area agricultural producers. 

EPA must improve its coordination and collaboration with its Bay partners and 

the agricultural community to better reduce nutrients and sediment entering the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. However, members of the agricultural community 

have been reluctant to participate with EPA because of EPA’s regulatory 

enforcement role. USDA, a Bay partner at the federal level, could significantly 

13
 
assist EPA in implementing the needed conservation practices within the 

agricultural community, given its many conservation programs, extensive field 

organization, and long experience working with the agricultural community. 

However, USDA has not coordinated a Department-wide strategy or policy to 

address its commitment as a Bay partner. 

EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay 2006-P-00032 

September 6, 2006 

EPA awarded assistance agreements (grants) that contributed toward meeting the 

goals of the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. These grants 

funded activities designed primarily to: reduce the nutrients and sediment entering 

the Bay and its tributaries, monitor ongoing efforts to restore Bay water quality, 

and model (estimate) the results of Bay implementation strategies. In Fiscal Years 

2003, 2004, and 2005, Congress appropriated $23 million each year for EPA’s 

Chesapeake Bay Program. In each of those years, EPA awarded about $8 million 

for State implementation grants and $7 million for technical and other grants for 

specific projects. EPA used the remaining $8 million to fund EPA personnel and 

office management, interagency agreements, and congressional earmarks. The 

efforts contributed to EPA’s overall Bay restoration program. This report did not 

contain recommendations. 

Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance 

Watershed Approach 

2005-P-00025

 September 21, 2005 

If EPA is committed to the watershed approach, it needs to make improvements in 

four key elements: 

 Integrating watershed activities into its core water programs. 

 Addressing stakeholder concerns to increase their participation. 

 Refining and improving key aspects of its strategic planning process. 

 Improving the watershed performance measurement system. 

Although progress has been made in each of the four critical elements that we 

reviewed, further improvements are needed for each. EPA has made progress 

integrating watershed approach principles into some of its core water programs, 

but needs to address challenges to ensure further success. Stakeholders were 

enthusiastic about the watershed approach, but identified a number of obstacles 

when adopting the approach. EPA has made important strides incorporating the 

watershed approach into its strategic plans, but it must improve some key steps. 

Although EPA developed a performance measurement system for improving 

water quality on a watershed basis, EPA did not develop measures to evaluate key 

programs and activities, and its national outcome measures were not 

understandable, comparable, and reliable. 

14
 
Efforts to Manage Backlog of Water Discharge Permits 

Need to Be Accompanied by Greater Program 

Integration 

2005-P-00018 

June 13, 2005 

EPA and the States have had varying success in eliminating the backlog of 

NPDES permits requiring renewal, and more still needs to be done. The NPDES 

permit program is only one of many EPA programs to improve surface water 

quality. EPA needs to integrate its efforts to eliminate the NPDES backlog with 

the other programs to improve and maintain water quality based on Clean Water 

Act requirements. 

To eliminate the NPDES permits backlog, EPA needs to address challenges 

involving resource constraints, increasing workload, complex permitting issues, 

external sources of permitting delays, and oversight limitations. EPA is now 

managing the NPDES permit program through the “Permitting for Environmental 

Results” Strategy that increases focus on environmental outcomes. 

Congressionally Requested Review of EPA Region 3's 

Oversight of State National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit Programs 

2005-S-00002 

October 29, 2004 

The review answers five specific questions: 

1. What are the statutory and regulatory requirements that EPA must 

follow for conducting oversight of State NPDES programs? The oversight 

requirements in the law are limited, but requirements are in the regulations. 

2. How many major and minor NPDES permitted sources are in Region 3 

States? Of the 7,499 traditional NPDES permitted sources in the Region, 750 are 

major sources and 6,749 are minor sources with individual permits. 

3. How many inspections and enforcement actions were taken? According to 

the information in the Permit Compliance System, from October 1, 2002, to 

August 9, 2004, Region 3 and States inspected 3,729 permittees and took 205 

enforcement actions. However, States do not report all of their actions in the 

system. 

4. What are Region 3's procedures for ensuring that States comply with 

grant work plans? EPA Order 5700.6, entitled Policy on Compliance, Review 

and Monitoring, is the official policy that the Regions should follow to ensure 

grant recipients are complying with grant work plans. In Region 3, multiple 

people within the Water Division manage the grants. The project officers rely on 

technical staff in the Division to obtain some of the reports States should submit 

and inform them if they are having problems with a State. The Region also 

conducts joint evaluations with States regarding the grant work plan. 

15
 
5. What are Region 3's procedures for ensuring that States are monitoring 

permits and taking timely enforcement actions? Region 3 uses various tools 

for overseeing States, including (a) reviewing information in the Permit 

Compliance System, (b) making quarterly calls with States, (c) carrying out 

Federal inspections and enforcement actions, and (d) reviewing State programs. 

Congressional Request Regarding EPA Clean Water 

Enforcement Actions 

2005-S-00001

 October 18, 2004 

According to respondents from the 10 EPA regions, wet weather enforcement 

cases require more resources to complete than traditional National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions. Further, 8 of the 10 

regions said that conducting enforcement actions against combined sewer 

overflows/sanitary sewer overflows requires more resources than other types of 

wet weather actions. 

Evidence suggests that EPA has shifted NPDES compliance and enforcement 

staff from traditional NPDES program activities to work on wet weather issues. 

All five of the EPA regions that provided information from Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 

through 2003 delineating traditional and wet weather resources indicated that they 

have shifted resources to address wet weather violations of the Clean Water Act. 

EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment 

Program 

2004-P-00030

 September 28, 2004 

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

characterized the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured, 

according to EPA published data compiled from information provided by 

industrial facilities. Since the middle of the 1990s, there has been little change in 

the volume of a broad list of toxic pollutants transferred to 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 Congress’ 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. The 

leveling off of those early gains, coinciding with EPA’s diminishing program 

emphasis, paints a picture of a program at risk. Headquarters has delayed 

finalizing guides and regulations intended to update the pretreatment program by 

not allocating sufficient resources or requesting budget increases for additional 

16
 
pretreatment resources. Additionally, results-based performance measures on 

pretreatment program activities have not been developed partially due to the lack 

of adequate, accessible data. As a result, POTWs’ pretreatment programs may not 

be as effective in protecting environmental quality or worker health and safety as 

they could be, and EPA cannot assess the effectiveness of its pretreatment 

program. 

Effectiveness of Effluent Guidelines Program for 

Reducing Pollutant Discharges Uncertain 

2004-P-00025 

August 24, 2004 

Regarding effectiveness, the impact of effluent guidelines remains uncertain. 

Although effluent guidelines were used in the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits we analyzed, pollutant discharge data were 

not readily available to determine whether effluent guidelines reduced pollutant 

discharges. We found a lag in issuing NPDES permits that utilized the revised 

effluent guidelines. Once reissued, permit limits were derived from the revised 

guidelines to a very large extent. We also found that adequate information was 

widely absent, although revised guideline-derived permit limits had an impact on 

the limited number of facilities with adequate information. Due to a lack of 

pollutant discharge data, we could not determine the extent of environmental 

benefits brought about by EPA’s investment in the effluent guidelines program. 

Further, EPA does not measure the effectiveness of either the effluent guidelines 

program or individual effluent guidelines. Consequently, EPA does not have 

sufficient evidence to show that this program has actually produced reductions. 

Although our work showed significant reductions in a few facilities, EPA has not 

systematically collected data to evaluate this program as a whole. Therefore, EPA 

cannot support a statement made in its recent Annual Report that industrial 

discharges of pollutants have been reduced by billions of pounds as a result of 

effluent guidelines. The effluent guidelines program has a marked insufficiency of 

information to make managerial decisions because EPA has not developed a 

systematic way of collecting such information. 

EPA Should Take Further Steps to Address Funding 

Shortfalls and Time Slippages in Permit Compliance 

System Modernization Effort 

2003-M-00014

 May 20, 2003 

Without a modernized Permit Compliance System (PCS), EPA’s Office of Water 

cannot effectively manage its Clean Water NPDES program. Having a 

modernized system is vital for EPA to effectively manage NPDES permitting and 

enforcement under current requirements. The current system is incomplete, 

obsolete, and difficult to use. The glaring weaknesses in the current PCS system 

have created a presumption in EPA that it will be modernized. We agree with 

EPA’s view of the importance of this project, and believe delaying the project’s 

rollout or reducing its functionality will hamper EPA’s ability to achieve its goal 

of managing pollution sources on a watershed basis. The growth, variety, and 

17
 
complexity of the regulated community have greatly outstripped the system’s 

capabilities. 

However, costs are dramatically escalating, and timeframes repeatedly pushed 

back, in part due to the failure to adequately plan, prepare, and manage the work. 

The critical role of the modernized PCS system does not make project 

management unimportant. On the contrary, management risks may be greater 

when a project is perceived as being vital. For this reason, it is imperative that 

EPA immediately conduct necessary analyses and develop realistic estimates of 

funding and schedules in order to place this project on a secure footing. 

Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating 

Combined Sewer Overflows 

2002-P-00012

 August 26, 2002 

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are the total discharges into water bodies of 

untreated domestic, commercial, and industrial waste and wastewater, as well as 

storm water runoff, from a Combined Sewer System. Such a system collects and 

transports both sanitary sewage and storm water runoff in a single-pipe system to 

a wastewater treatment facility. Overflows can impair water quality and adversely 

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

beach closings and fishing and recreational restrictions. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) issued a CSO Policy in 1994, and states and 

communities have implemented CSO programs with varying success. Since 

1978, the number of CSO permittees has been reduced from approximately 1,300 

to 859. Some states have given the CSO program a higher priority than others. 

An estimated $44.7 billion is needed nationwide for CSO abatement efforts, and 

raising sufficient funding for often expensive projects is obviously a significant 

barrier for many communities. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is a major 

funding mechanism, but even its vast resources cannot meet the demand. Another 

key barrier that we noted is finding suitable sites for needed facilities. 

Despite the barriers noted, states and communities demonstrated numerous 

promising practices that could be employed in the CSO programs of others to 

improve operations, reduce costs, and eliminate some of the aforementioned 

barriers. These promising practices included a variety of technical approaches and 

innovations, state grant programs, government cooperative efforts, public 

education initiatives, and neighborhood improvements. However, there is a need 

for a central mechanism within EPA to disseminate this information. 

Land Application of Biosolids 2002-S-000004

 March 28, 2002 

Sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid, or liquid by-product generated during the 

treatment of wastewater at sewage treatment plants. According to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over half the sludge produced each year 

is “used beneficially,” primarily on agricultural land. The treated sewage sludge 

18
 
used in land application is called “biosolids” by EPA and the industry. Land 

application of biosolids is a controversial issue. Concerns have been expressed 

about potentially adverse impacts of biosolids on human health and the 

environment as well as quality of life for nearby residents. However, EPA has 

taken the position that the biosolids program is low-risk and low-priority. 

In March 2001, the National Whistleblower Center submitted a series of 

allegations to the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concerning EPA’s 

conduct in regard to regulating biosolids. The allegations by the Center were 

based largely on issues raised by an EPA research scientist. In addition, a 

previous OIG audit on biosolids, issued in March 2000, found inadequacies in 

EPA’s management and enforcement of the biosolids program. For these reasons, 

we are providing a status report on land application of biosolids. 

The Clean Water Act gives EPA authority to delegate the biosolids program to 

States, but little progress has been made thus far. Only five States have received 

formal delegation from EPA for the biosolids program. Given EPA’s lack of 

resources devoted to the Federal program, EPA cannot be certain that all citizens 

in non-delegated States are provided at least the same level of protection as in the 

Federal program. 

Water Enforcement: State Enforcement of Clean Water 

Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective 

2001-P-00013 

August 14, 2001 

We believe 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. 

The state enforcement strategies we evaluated needed to be modified to better 

address environmental risks, including contaminated runoff. Contaminated 

runoff, including agricultural and urban runoff, was widely accepted as causing 

the majority of the nation’s remaining water quality problems. Although many 

sources of contaminated runoff were regulated, some were not. 

19