U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Compendium of 

Unimplemented Recommendations

as of March 31, 2009 

Report No. 09-N-0148 

April 30, 2009 
Abbreviations 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

 Information System 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CPAF Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System 

IGEMS Inspector General Enterprise Management System 

MATS Management Audit Tracking System 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NSQS National Sediment Quality Survey 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OARM	 Office of Administration and Resources Management 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEI Office of Environmental Information 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation 

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs 

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OW Office of Water 

PRP Potentially Responsible Party 

SCORPIOS Superfund Cost Recovery Package Imaging and On-Line System 
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

April 30, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

Report No. 09-N-0148 

TO: Acting Deputy Administrator 

Acting Assistant Administrators 

Acting Regional Administrators 

Acting General Counsel 

Acting Chief Financial Officer 

Acting Associate Administrators 

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

2009, prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

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

(as amended) that the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress identify reports containing significant 

recommendations described in previous Semiannual Reports on which corrective action has not 

been completed. 

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

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

the EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer and 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 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 initial report on 

unimplemented recommendations in April 2008 followed by the first edition of the Compendium 

in October 2008 appear to be having the intended effect in terms of greater Agency awareness of, 

and action on, unimplemented OIG recommendations. 

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

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

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

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

significant recommendations as possible. 

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

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

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

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

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

 Bill A. Roderick 

 Deputy Inspector General 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Table of Contents 

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

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

OIG Report Number 

08-P-0141 ..................................................................................................................... 4

 08-P-0116 ...................................................................................................................... 6

 08-P-0093 ..................................................................................................................... 7

 2007-P-00030 ............................................................................................................... 8 

2007-P-00026 ............................................................................................................. 10 

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

2007-P-00008 ............................................................................................................. 12 

2007-P-00007 ............................................................................................................. 13 

2006-P-00038 ............................................................................................................. 14

 2006-P-00016 ............................................................................................................. 16 

2006-P-00013 ............................................................................................................. 18 

2006-P-00009 ............................................................................................................. 19 

2006-P-00001 ............................................................................................................. 20 

2005-P-00024 ............................................................................................................. 21 

2005-P-00011 ............................................................................................................. 22 

2005-P-00010 ............................................................................................................ 23 

2004-P-00030 ............................................................................................................. 25 

2001-P-00013 ............................................................................................................. 26 

Appendix A: OIG Reports with Unimplemented 

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

Appendix B: Unimplemented Recommendations: 

 10/31/08 Compendium Compared to Current Compendium ................ 30 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Introduction 

Purpose 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the reporting period of October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. The OIG intends to issue this 

Compendium in each subsequent semiannual reporting period to keep Agency management 

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

OIG recommendations to improve programs and operations. 

Background 

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

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

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

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

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

officials and auditors. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

This is the second edition of the Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations. It 

identifies 32 unimplemented recommendations from 18 reports compared to 40 unimplemented 

recommendations from 20 reports identified in the first edition of the Compendium for the period 

ending September 30, 2008. Of the 32 unimplemented recommendations currently reported, 22 

from 14 reports are continuing, and 10 from 4 reports are newly identified. Also, 18 

unimplemented recommendations from 6 reports indentified in the previous Compendium have 

been removed from this current edition. Please note that several recommendations may be 

attributable to a single report, so that a report could have a combination of unimplemented 

recommendations reported as continuing, newly reported, and removed. Also, please note that 

removal of an unimplemented recommendation does not necessarily imply that it was verified as 

implemented, but only reported as completed or that the target completion date was 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, which 

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

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

unimplemented recommendations that may not have been identified in MATS. 

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

through September 30, 2008, to identify significant unimplemented recommendations for 

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

recommendations from Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003. We did not review 

recommendations from reports without an OIG agreement on the Agency’s corrective action plan 

(Management Decision). A list of these reports can be found in Appendix 2 of the OIG 

Semiannual Report to Congress. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

costs or value. 

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

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

•	 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, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

The Compendium includes 18 reports and lists 32 unimplemented recommendations. The 

following EPA offices have unimplemented recommendations listed in this Compendium: 

Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

Office of Environmental Information (OEI) 

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

Office of Water (OW)
 

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

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

delay in completing an agreed-to action. 

3 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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 cleanups at National Priorities List (NPL) sites as of 

September 30, 2007. Yet, EPA does not nationally compile or track data on substantial noncompliance 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. The report 

recommendations were issued to OECA and Region 5. However, Region 5 has no past-due 

corrective actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA request that 

the regions input compliance status data for Superfund instruments in the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Limit 

the CERCLIS input for the “In Violation” designations to issues that meet OECA’s definition for 

substantial noncompliance. 

Status: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Significant Noncompliance Workgroup and the CERCLA Compliance 

Tracking Workgroup reached a consensus on defining significant noncompliance and 

system enhancements that will allow regions to track and update compliance information 

in CERCLIS. The products of the workgroups were integrated into a draft, Guidance on 

Tracking Substantial Noncompliance with CERCLA Enforcement Instruments in 

CERCLIS. OECA is addressing the comments received from the regions and will ask 

EPA's General Counsel to review the guidance. Revisions to the guidance in response to 

comments will also result in minor changes to the compliance status values list in 

CERCLIS. OECA plans to complete this corrective action by June 30, 2009. The 

agreed-to completion date was December 31, 2008. 

Recommendation 5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA monitor 

Region 5’s progress in establishing an enforceable Superfund instrument for the Muskego 

Landfill Site that provides specific response actions and milestones to address the off-site 

contamination issues. If Region 5 is unable to finalize this Superfund instrument, take 

appropriate actions to ensure that enforceable response actions and milestones to address the 

contamination issues are established. 

4 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Status: OECA conferred regularly with Region 5 about the Muskego Landfill 

enforcement process. Region 5 reports that discussions with the PRP for an 

Administrative Order on Consent for off-site ground-water investigations have been 

extremely productive. They have agreed on a scope of work for all necessary off-site 

investigations. However, Region 5 and the PRP have agreed that it is best to terminate 

the Administrative Order on Consent negotiations and immediately begin negotiations for 

a consent decree to replace the existing unilateral administrative order. The consent 

decree will have to update requirements for all aspects of the Remedial Design/Remedial 

Action and put EPA in a better position to expedite implementing any additional 

requirements to protect the public's use of groundwater near the site. More 

documentation on this matter is included in OECA's official files. OECA plans to 

complete this corrective action by September 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date 

was March 31, 2009. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OCFO, OECA 

Report Title: EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money 

Report No.: 08-P-0116 Date Issued: 03/26/2008 

Report Summary 

CERCLA (Superfund) authorizes the Federal Government, States, and private parties to recover 

Superfund cleanup expenses (costs) from potentially responsible parties. When EPA conducts 

such cleanup and oversight work, it takes actions to recover those costs from responsible parties. 

We evaluated EPA’s Superfund cost recovery and billing practices at a sample of NPL sites and 

found that EPA regions have recovered $165 million of $294 million (56%) of the total Superfund costs from those sites. Potentially responsible parties at these sites have generally paid 

what they have been billed, but EPA has not recovered as much as $129 million (44%) and has 

determined it will not try to recover between $30 million and $90 million of this amount. This 

situation indicates a potentially significant breakdown in controls over Superfund cost recovery. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the EPA Chief Financial Officer and the Assistant 

Administrator for OECA work collaboratively to implement mechanisms to: 

•	 Support calculation of site cost recovery efficiency - Track the resolution of each cost as 

determined in the annual billing process. Resolutions could include billed, not billed for 

a specified reason, and pending. 

•	 Track corrections – Identify incorrect costs until they are corrected. 

Both of these mechanisms could be implemented through enhancements to Superfund Cost 

Recovery Package Imaging and On-Line System (SCORPIOS). 

Status: EPA planned to explore ways to enhance information systems to develop a 

mechanism that supports calculating cost-recovery efficiency and tracking error corrections through identification and resolution. The agreed-to completion date was 

December 31, 2008, the same day EPA proposed a new schedule for corrective action. 

EPA plans to add a dropdown box to SCORPIOS highlighting the rationale for removing 

Unbilled Costs. The SCORPIOS enhancements will be piloted in May 2009. In 

November and December of 2009, EPA plans to develop reports to track both the 

removal of Unbilled Costs and any corrections for timely inclusion in a billing package. 

Recommendation 3: We recommend the EPA Chief Financial Officer and the Assistant 

Administrator for OECA work collaboratively to implement mechanisms to implement 

performance measures to track cost-recovery efficiency. 

Status: EPA planned to convene a workgroup to address program efficiency measures. 

OSWER and OECA agreed to assist OCFO with its developing and implementing a 

viable cost-recovery efficiency measure. The agreed-to completion date was December 

31, 2008. On March 23, 2009, EPA proposed a change in the corrective actions for this 

recommendation. The OIG did not approve the change. EPA is considering further 

revisions to its corrective action plan. 

6 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OARM 

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

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

provided contractors with high ratings and award fees. However, we could not determine if EPA 

properly awarded fees because it did not sufficiently document the basis for the ratings. Because 

EPA consistently provided high ratings, we believe award fees are more of an expectation for 

contractors rather than a factor that motivates excellence. The report recommendations were 

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

in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

Contracts Management Manual to require that: 

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

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

Status: OARM reported it revised the Contracts Management Manual, Chapter 16.1, Use 

of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts, to require that each contract file include 

documentation to show why the particular contract type was selected. In the event 

Contracting Officers consider awarding CPAF contracts, they must confer with the 

proper advisors, assess factors, and apply adequate analytical measures (cost-benefit 

analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, etc.) prior to selecting CPAF contracts. The revised 

chapter is on schedule to be published by April 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date 

was September 30, 2008. 

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

Contracts Management Manual to require work assignment managers, project officers, contracting 

officers, and Performance Evaluation Board members to explicitly document the basis for award-fee 

decisions made. 

Status: OARM reported it revised the Contracts Management Manual, Chapter 16.1, to 

strengthen coordination in decision-making and documenting the basis for award-fee 

decisions made. The Contracting Officer is responsible for reviewing the evaluation 

report to ensure that the performance areas are evaluated in accordance with the 

established criteria and the results support the award fee. The revised chapter is on 

schedule to be published by April 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date was 

September 30, 2008. 

7 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OEI 

Report Title: Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network 

Report No.: 2007-P-00030 Date Issued: 08/20/2007 

Report Summary 

EPA established a partnership with the Exchange Network’s governance bodies to assist them 

with accomplishing Network initiatives. The Exchange Network is a secure Internet and 

standards-based approach for exchanging environmental data and improving environmental 

decisions. EPA, State environmental departments, U.S. tribes, and territories have acted as 

partners in building the Network. By using Network nodes (interconnected computers), the 

Network provides access to, and exchange of, environmental data. This node-to-node exchange 

of data is intended to increase efficiency through automation and reduce reporting burden. 

The Exchange Network Business Plan stresses the importance of having an effective 

collaborative partnership between EPA, the Network governance bodies, and the Network 

partners. Since EPA intends for the Exchange Network to become the preferred method for 

exchanging environmental data and foresees expanding the Network, EPA should take steps to 

improve Network use. Without taking action, EPA would not know when or whether its partners 

would adopt the Network as the preferred method to share data with EPA. As such, EPA 

investments in the Network would not yield the desired outcomes. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-2: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI have 

the Director, Office of Information Collection, modify Exchange Network change management 

policies and procedures to include step-by-step processes for fully testing and certifying all 

implementation tools before release to the Exchange Network community. 

Status: OEI reported that the Network Technical Group, an organization of State, tribal, 

EPA representatives, and a subgroup of the Network Operations Board will perform this 

function. It will take additional steps to develop and publish these procedures to the 

Network Web site, http://www.exchangenetwork.net. The Network Technical Group 

Fiscal Year 2008 work plan includes an update to the change management procedures to 

reflect how the Group will test and certify Exchange Network tools. Therefore, the Group 

will develop an updated set of change management procedures and post these to the 

Exchange Network website. The agreed-to completion date was July 31, 2008. The 

corrective action was completed on April 3, 2009. Since implementation of the 

recommendation occurred after March 31, 2009, the Semiannual reporting period cut-off 

date, we are including the recommendation in this Compendium. 

Recommendation 4-2: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI work 

with the Exchange Network governance bodies to develop procedures for establishing ad hoc 

workgroups for Exchange Network projects. 

Status: OEI stated that the Network Operations Board’s Fiscal Year 2008 work plan 

includes developing a process for engaging new Integrated Project Teams when they 

form and for standardizing the guidance and expectations which are communicated to 

them. The agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2008. OEI reports that rather 

8 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

than procedures for Integrated Project Teams or workgroups, the Network Operations 

Board and Network Technical Group have instead focused on creating and refining the 

governance mechanisms for ensuring that the products created by ad hoc workgroups 

meet the Exchange Network standards and guidance. OEI plans to propose and discuss 

with the OIG a revised corrective action plan to reflect the changes in corrective actions 

for this recommendation and the two following recommendations. 

Recommendation 5-1: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI have 

the Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, publish standards that specify when 

EPA program offices must use the Exchange Network when modernizing or developing applications. 

The standards should also specify the processes EPA offices must follow when the office cannot 

adhere to the established standards or select an alternate technological solution to the one prescribed. 

Status: OEI agreed to publish standards that specify when EPA program offices must use 

the Exchange Network when modernizing or developing applications. The agreed-to 

completion date was December 31, 2008. OEI reports that the “decision tree” approach 

was abandoned as well as the deadlines and dates originally set related to it. Office of 

Technology Operations and Planning and Office of Information Collection have instead 

embarked on an information collection procedure under the enterprise architecture to 

achieve this goal. Estimated completion will be December 2009. As explained above, 

this corrective action change will be incorporated in the revised corrective action plan. 

Recommendation 5-2: We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator for OEI have 

the Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, include the Exchange Network and 

related technologies as part of the Agency’s Enterprise Architecture. 

Status: OEI reports that it has started defining “decision tree” logic for Enterprise tools 

and completed high-level decision tree logic for data collection service for Central Data 

Exchange, EPA’s Node on the Exchange Network, and Portal. In addition, work is 

underway on high-level decision tree logic for Identity and Access Management service. 

EPA also intends to incorporate standards into Enterprise Architecture compliance 

criteria dependent upon the timetable for recommendation 5-1 above. The agreed-to 

completion date was December 31, 2008. OEI is expanding the action to include a new 

element, the Information Sharing Segment Architecture, which EPA committed to OMB 

to develop to specify more clearly how the Exchange Network/Central Data Exchange 

works as a key aspect of EPA information sharing. This architecture, centered on the 

Central Data Exchange, will further formalize the role and use of the Central Data 

Exchange and Exchange Network. As explained above, this corrective action change will 

be incorporated in the revised corrective action plan. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Offices: OSWER 

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

Superfund Cleanups 

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

Report Summary 

Since the 1980s, EPA has used variations of the Superfund Alternative approach to clean up 

Superfund NPL-equivalent hazardous waste sites. The NPL is a list of the Nation’s highest 

priority Superfund sites. The Superfund Alternative approach is an alternative to listing sites on 

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

Superfund Alternative approach. In our evaluation, we found EPA has not implemented 

effective management tools or controls for the Superfund Alternative approach. The report 

recommendations were issued to OSWER and OECA. However, OECA has no past-due 

corrective actions reported in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

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

Alternative sites. This includes construction completions, final remedy selection, human 

exposure under control, migration of contaminated groundwater under control, and site-wide 

ready-for-reuse. Report GPRA measures at Superfund Alternative sites separately from GPRA 

measures at NPL sites. 

Status: OECA reported that OSWER now has the ability to track and report 

accomplishments at sites with Superfund Alternative approach agreements and is 

currently determining the format and recipients of the annual report. Completion is 

expected in June 2009. The agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2008. 

10 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up 

Report No.: 2007-P-00025 Date Issued: 05/24/2007 

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

have no past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

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

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

ensure completeness and accuracy. 

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

Coordinators would continue to review all audit management information, including 

official files, biannually. These reviews would be conducted every March and September 

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

General Act to report to Congress on the status of completing corrective actions. OW 

said it would make every effort to maintain the completeness and accuracy of the 

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

present guidance materials to all potential OW officials on the Agency's requirement 

under EPA Order 2750 by March 30, 2009. OECA completed its corrective action for 

this recommendation. 

11 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OEI 

Report Title: EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software 

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

Report Summary 

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

EPA’s mainframe system software housed at the Agency’s National Computer Center. The 

National Computer Center is located at the Research Triangle Park campus in Raleigh, North 

Carolina. 

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

software, including: 

•	 Roles and responsibilities were not clearly assigned. 

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

•	 Policies, procedures, and guides could be strengthened. 

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

implemented. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 9: We recommend that the Director for OEI, Office of Technology 

Operations and Planning, complete efforts to update the OEI Information Security Manual and 

the EPA Information Security Manual. Subsequent to finalizing the changes, ensure the manuals 

are (1) reviewed timely by EPA management for adequacy, accuracy, and completeness; and (2) 

approved by EPA management in a timely manner. 

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

resource alignments, caused the original scheduled Agency Information Security 

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

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

2009. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guide for Managers; and several other related NIST publications. 

12 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OEI 

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

Reporting Incidents 

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

defensive measures. The report was issued to OEI and OARM. However, OARM reported in 

MATS that its one corrective action has been completed. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

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

systems that contain EPA data. 

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

resource alignments, caused the original scheduled Agency Information Security 

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

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

has been awarded. The Handbook will address identifying, certifying, and accrediting 

contractor systems acting on behalf of the Agency. A draft Agency Information Security 

Manual has been presented to an Agency workgroup. The Handbook is now scheduled 

for completion in June 2009. 

As an interim stopgap while developing the Handbook was being planned, the CIO issued 

CIO Policy Transmittal 08-005: Agency Network Security Policy, on November 11, 

2007. This Policy provided the Agency with specific references to the NIST SP 800-37, 

Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems; 

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

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

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

Processing Standards Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal 

Information and Information Systems, to address identifying government and contractor 

systems acting on behalf of the government. 

13 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OSWER, OARM 

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

Future Improvement Opportunities Exist 

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

efforts; we identified improvements EPA can make in future disaster responses. OARM reported 

that it has completed the areas of Recommendations 2-1 and 4-1 (Bullets 2 and 5) within its 

purview. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

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

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

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

emergency response area. 

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Order. OSWER reports that even though the Order is not final, EPA regions and 

Headquarters are following its requirements. OSWER expects the final Order to be 

issued by May 30, 2009. The agreed-to completion date was December 2006. 

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

conjunction with OARM ensure that contract clauses to limit charges for contractor-owned 

equipment flow down from the prime contract to the subcontracts. 

Status: EPA reported in MATS that this recommendation was implemented. However, a 

follow-up review by the OIG determined that the agreed-to clause had not been included 

in a $32 million (ceiling value) logistics support contract awarded by OARM to support a 

region’s needs during emergencies. OARM reported that the clause has been written and 

is in the final stages of review. The clause is on schedule to be inserted in the contract by 

May 30, 2009. 

Recommendation 4-1 (Bullet 2): Recognizing that the Assistant Administrator for OSWER has 

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

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

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

14 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

OSWER and OARM consider providing a sufficient number of property specialists in the 

affected areas early during the crisis 

Status: Same as for Recommendation 2-1. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

quickly and in a central location. 

Status: OSWER reported that the Equipment Module is operational, and the regions and 

special teams are receiving training and adding their data into the system. OSWER 

expects full implementation by December 31, 2009. The agreed-to completion date was 

December 31, 2006. 

15 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Offices: OW 

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

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

measured strategy effectiveness and assessed contamination. The report recommendations were 

issued to OSWER, OW, OECA, OA, and the Office of Research and Development. However, 

OSWER, OECA, OA, and the Office of Research and Development have no past-due corrective 

actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

cost savings alternative, consider using statistical sampling in conjunction with existing 

data for the national assessment. Improve the completeness and availability of sample 

location information (metadata), quality assurance/quality control information, and 

assessment parameters for future NSQS reports. 

Status: OW planned to work with the Office of Research and Development to determine 

if a statistical design for collecting contaminated sediment data would be practical. After 

consultation, OW determined that the resources needed for designing and implementing a 

survey for sediments would exceed the resources available for the program. As an 

alternative, if the statistical design was determined to be impractical, OW agreed to work 

with the Office of Research and Development to develop a design that provides the best 

national assessment based on the available data. The agreed-to completion date was 

spring 2007. 

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

contaminated sediment data from all major sources, including the Great Lakes National 

Program Office and Superfund program. At a minimum, establish a formal coordination 

process for acquiring contaminated sediment data from EPA program offices and 

applicable agencies and organizations outside EPA. Also, consider cost-effective options 

for acquiring and compiling contaminated sediment data maintained in paper format. 

Status: OW has developed electronic transfer protocols that will allow other EPA 

offices, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and States to enter 

contaminated sediment data into EPA’s Water Quality Exchange that can be used for the 

16 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

next NSQS. OW also developed, with OSWER funds, an approach for incorporating 

OSWER contaminated sediment data into Water Quality Exchange. Additionally, OW 

plans to hold a workshop on the design of the next NSQS when resources become 

available. The agreed-to completion date was summer 2007. 

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

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

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

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

alternative reporting schedule for consideration. 

Status: 

1. OW has consulted with Office of Research and Development experts on sediment 

fate and transport to determine how much time, in general, it takes for sediment 

contaminant concentrations to change such that the difference can be measured. 

The analysis considered a representative literature compilation regarding the 

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

OW to determine a reporting frequency based on science. The analysis was 

completed in November 2007. 

2. OW obtained preliminary information on the needs of other EPA programs for the 

NSQS data and analysis. EPA expects that this issue will be a focus of 

discussions in the Contaminated Sediment Data Committee and at the proposed 

National Workshop. These discussions will enable OW to determine a reporting 

frequency based on the real needs of programs for this information. 

3. From the two actions above, OW will be able to make a recommendation for an 

alternative reporting schedule. 

17 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OSWER 

Report Title: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources 

Report No.: 2006-P-00013 Date Issued: 02/28/2006 

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

managing program resources. 

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. 

18 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

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; and 

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

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

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

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

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

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

Gerber Products Company’s Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study. 

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

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

2003 and 2004 food intake data sets. The agreed-to completion date was December 

2006. OPP reports that it is working on updating the food consumption data. OPP 

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

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

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

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

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

19 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OPEI 

Report Title: Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes 

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

Report Summary 

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

developing the EPA’s 2003 proposed rule for regulating disposable and reusable solventcontaminated industrial wipes. The OIG found the following regarding specific concerns 

presented to us by Congress related to EPA rulemaking for industrial wipes: 

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

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

which establishes requirements for rulemaking. 

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

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

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

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

e-mails, and letters. 

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

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

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

business practice of obtaining input from stakeholders. 

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

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

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

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

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

actions, including the development of rules. 

Status: OPEI planned to issue the guidance in 2006. Upon further consideration, OPEI 

decided to address the issue with a memorandum to Agency senior managers directing 

them to “resources currently available to EPA rulewriters and action developers on 

maintaining an open and fair dialogue with stakeholders and other interested parties.” 

The memorandum was issued on January 14, 2008, and is available on EPA’s Intranet 

site. It is incorporated into the Action Development Process and training for rulewriters 

Agency-wide. On October 17, 2008, OPEI requested approval from the OIG for this 

change in the corrective action plan. The OIG determined that the actions taken and 

described did not meet the intent of Recommendation 4-1. The OIG did not approve the 

change and offered to meet to discuss other alternative actions. 

20 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OECA 

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

EPA’s Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance 

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unimplemented Recommendation 

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

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

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

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

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

track, record, verify, and report. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

necessary and is pursuing a rule to address this recommendation. On March 17, 2009, 

OECA requested an extension to the milestone date for this recommendation to 

November 30, 2010. The OIG decision is pending. 

21 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OEI 

Report Title: Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA’s Remote Access Methods Need 

Improvement 

Report No.: 2005-P-00011 Date Issued: 03/22/05 

Report Summary 

Remote access is the connecting to EPA's data communications network from alternate locations 

not directly connected to the network. Two key methods of attaining remote access are through 

an Internet browser via Web-Mail or through a BlackBerry, which is a wireless handheld device. 

We found that system administrators did not configure EPA’s Web-Mail and BlackBerry servers 

to provide secure remote access to the Agency’s network and did not configure or update 59 

percent of the Web-Mail and BlackBerry servers to mitigate vulnerabilities. We also found 

several of the Agency’s BlackBerry devices were not adequately configured, secured, or 

monitored; devices that had no password enabled or had functionality that would allow users to 

disable passwords; and devices left unattended in workstation cubicles. Consequently, 

confidentiality and integrity of EPA data, as well as the availability of the network, was at risk of 

unintentional or intentional exploitation. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

OEI previously reported in MATS that all corrective actions in response to the recommendations 

in this audit report were completed. However, due to recent follow-up work by the OIG, OEI 

has re-opened this audit and is implementing corrective actions in concert with the OIG’s Office 

of Mission Systems. A formal corrective action plan is expected from OEI after the OIG’s 

follow-up report is issued. 

22 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

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 plans to provide additional information and request that the OIG reconsider 

Recommendation 2-2. 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) 

23 
Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

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

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

includes discussions of monitoring, operational requirements, regulatory applicability 

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

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

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

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

the plant. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

recommendation, to the OIG for approval. 

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

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

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

resolved by State and local Title V permitting authorities. 

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

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

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

needed for EPA to oversee the Title V program. 

24 
 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program 

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

these discharges, is threatened, and progress has stalled toward achieving the Clean Water Act 

goal of eliminating toxic discharges that can harm water quality. 

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 adopting results-based performance 

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

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

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

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

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

the strategy. 

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

States to store information regarding Publicly Owned Treatment Works pretreatment 

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

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

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

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

crucial to facilitate migrating and retaining data as EPA transitions to the Integrated 

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

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

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

agreed-to completion date was September 2007. 

Although OW reported that the schedule for the ICIS-NPDES has been delayed, EPA has 

meanwhile obtained input from State and Publicly Owned Treatment Works partners on a 

draft framework for a technical handbook describing environmental benefits achieved by 

implementation of the Pretreatment Program. EPA also participated in a roundtable 

discussion on Pretreatment Program performance measures with States and Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works. 

25 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Action Office: OECA 

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

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

Report Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

information from five State audits. 

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

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

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

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

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

Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

the development of the Interim Data Exchange Format for the Permit Compliance System. Also, 

before proceeding further into design and development, work with OW to ensure there is an upto-date policy statement for water system criteria. 

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

that pass their data into the Permit Compliance System. EPA is not investing any 

additional resources for flowing data to the Permit Compliance System, but is focusing 

on an improved process for batch flow into ICIS-NPDES. The policy was opposed by 

States. Therefore, OECA is pursuing a rule to require submission of the data by States. 

The agreed-to completion date was February/March 2002. On March 17, 2009, OECA 

requested extending the milestone date for this recommendation to November 30, 2010. 

The OIG decision is pending. 

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

report the Permit Compliance System as an Agency-level weakness until the modernization 

project is implemented and the system data is reasonably accurate and complete. 

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

process. Under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, OECA tracks the Permit 

Compliance System as an Agency-level weakness. This weakness will be a reportable 

weakness under the Act until Fiscal Year 2013, and will be monitored as part of the Act 

until such time it is successfully implemented, or the Agency's Administrator determines 

it is appropriate to remove as an Agency-level weakness. OECA had planned for the data 

requirements to be finalized in July 2002 and system design specifications in September 

2002. The agreed-to completion date was for the end of Fiscal Year 2003. On March 17, 

26 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

2009, OECA requested extending the milestone date for this recommendation to 

December 31, 2013. The OIG decision is pending. 

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

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

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

noncompliance reports. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

guidance to be issued in 2003. On March 17, 2009, OECA requested extending the 

milestone date for this recommendation to April 30, 2009. The OIG decision is pending. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Appendix A 

OIG Reports with Unimplemented Recommendations 

by Program Office

as of March 31, 2009 

OAR 

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

Are to Be Fully Realized 

OARM 

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

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

Opportunities Exist 

OCFO 

08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money 

OECA 

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

08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money 

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

Changes in Regulatory Compliance 

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

OEI 

2007-P-00030, Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network 

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

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

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

OA/OPEI 

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

28 
 

 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

OPPTS 

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

Act 

OSWER 

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

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

Opportunities Exist 

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

OW 

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

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

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

29 
 

 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

Appendix B 

Unimplemented Recommendations

10/31/08 Compendium Compared to Current Compendium 

Continuing Unimplemented Recommendations 

08-P-0093, EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts (Recommendations 2-1, 2-2)
 

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

(Recommendation 3-1) 

2007-P-00025, EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of Audit Follow-up (Recommendation 1)
 

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

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 (Recommendations 2-1, 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)
 

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

Act (Recommendation 4-1)
 

2006-P-00001, Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes (Recommendation 4-1)
 

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

Changes in Regulatory Compliance (Recommendation 2-4)
 

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)
 

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

3-2, 3-4, 3-5) 

New Unimplemented Recommendations 

08-P-0141, EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements (Recommendations 1, 5)
 

08-P-0116, EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money (Recommendations 2, 3)
 

2007-P-00030, Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network (Recommendations 

2-2, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2) 

30 
 

 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2009 

(Report No. 09-N-0148) 

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

Opportunities Exist (Recommendations 3-2, 4-1(bullet 2)) 

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

currently conducting follow-up audit) 

Removed Unimplemented Recommendations 

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

29, 30) 

2007-P-00035, EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy Program Management Controls (Recommendation 5)
 

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

(Recommendation 3-1)
 

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

(Recommendations 2-2, 3-2)
 

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

(Recommendation 3-4)
 

2007-P-00008, EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software (Recommendations 3, 5)
 

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

1, 4, 5, 6)
 

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

2-4)
 

2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources (Recommendation 2-5)
 

2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program (Recommendation 4-3)
 

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

Improvement (Incorrectly closed out in MATS) 

2001-P-00013, State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective (Recommendation 3-1) 

31