FLINT PODCAST TRANSCRIPT – MAY 2022

Becky: Hello! Welcome to this podcast by the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. My name is Becky Klingler, and joining me today is Cara Lindsey, an auditor with the OIG. Welcome, Cara, and thank you for being here. 
Cara: Hi, Becky. I’m happy to be here; thank you for having me.
Becky: Cara, your team just published the OIG’s third report about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Can you briefly tell us about the history of this crisis?
Cara: Sure. In April 2014, the City of Flint began sourcing its water from the Flint River instead of purchasing treated water. It also became responsible for treating the water, but its treatment did not include preventing the corrosion of lead components in the water distribution system. As a result, lead began leaching into the city’s drinking water. Shortly after, Flint residents began reporting issues with the quality of their water, but both the local and federal governments were slow to respond. Eventually, in January 2016, the EPA issued an emergency order to address the public health threat in the absence of adequate responses by the City of Flint and the State of Michigan.
Becky:  Can you also briefly tell us about the two previous reports issued by the OIG about the Flint water crisis?

Cara: Of course. In October 2016, the OIG issued our first report on the crisis, a management alert to promote awareness and facilitate immediate EPA action in the case of future crises. We recommended that the EPA update its guidance and train its staff on how to effectively implement the part of the Safe Drinking Water Act that gives the EPA emergency authority to act when a contaminant in drinking water may present a - quote - imminent and substantial endangerment - unquote - to human health and when the appropriate authorities have not acted to protect the public. 
Then, in July 2018, we published our second report, which dug deeper into the root causes of the Flint crisis, as well as the delayed local, state, and federal responses. On the local level, we found that the City of Flint did not identify and maintain sampling sites, nor did it install and maintain continuous corrosion-control treatment throughout its water distribution system. On the state level, Michigan did not require the city to take the actions needed. On the federal level, we found deficiencies in the EPA’s oversight of state drinking water programs and in the EPA’s response to drinking water contamination emergencies. We issued nine recommendations to the EPA in our 2018 report to address these issues.

Becky: Which brings us to the third report, which was published this month, May 2022. What was the focus of this report?

Cara: One mandate of an OIG is to conduct follow-up audits to ensure that an agency is effectively implementing OIG recommendations. Given the gravity of the Flint crisis — and given that excessive levels of lead were since detected in the water of another Michigan city, Benton Harbor, from 2018 to 2021 without sufficient action being taken — we wanted to follow up on our 2018 report to see whether the EPA had fully implemented actions that addressed the nine recommendations.

Becky: And what did you find?

Cara: Well, first I need to explain the status of those nine recommendations. Either upon issuance of our final report in July 2018 or shortly thereafter, all nine recommendations were – quote – unquote - resolved, meaning the EPA proposed actions to address the recommendations and the OIG agreed with the EPA’s proposals. As EPA personnel completed the actions (or believed they completed them), the Agency issued what are called certification memorandums, officially certifying that the actions were completed. From December 2018 to July 2021, in three separate certification memos, the EPA certified that actions for all nine recommendations were completed. In addition, after it certified completion of each recommendation, the EPA closed out the recommendation in its audit tracking system – meaning that the Agency considered the actions complete and the recommendations fully addressed.
However, as the OIG performed this follow-up audit, we found that the EPA’s actions did not fully address three of our nine recommendations. We disagree that the Agency completed the actions for those recommendations, and it is our position that the Agency should not have closed the recommendations in its tracking system.

Becky: Thanks for that explanation, Cara. Can you tell us about the three recommendations that the EPA did not fully address, and how each one impacts drinking water safety?

Cara: Sure, Becky. Recommendation 1 in our 2018 report said that the EPA should - quote - establish controls to annually verify that states are monitoring compliance with all Lead and Copper Rule requirements – unquote. The Lead and Copper Rule is part of the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Although the states generally have responsibility for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA retains federal oversight authority under the Act. So, in plain language, Recommendation 1 in our 2018 report said that the EPA should be — every year — confirming that the states are ensuring that their water systems are complying with the Lead and Copper Rule. 

Becky: What are the requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule?

Cara: There are many, but two requirements that are relevant to our audit are that the water systems with excessive lead levels must one — regularly monitor for changes in lead concentration and two — optimize and maintain continuous corrosion-control treatment. 

Becky: You already said that the EPA didn’t fully address this recommendation. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Cara: The EPA has an annual protocol that it uses to review state water programs. Before 2018, this protocol did not include an EPA assessment of Lead and Copper Rule compliance; in other words, the EPA was not making sure that water systems were appropriately monitoring their lead levels or maintaining corrosion control. 
During this follow-up audit, we discovered that the EPA revised its protocol to include such an assessment, but it made the assessment optional, not mandatory. 

Becky: And what is the potential impact of not making this annual assessment mandatory?

Cara: In our 2018 report, we described how the circumstances of and response to Flint’s drinking water crisis were caused, in part, by oversight lapses at the EPA, state, and local levels. These lapses prolonged the exposure of Flint residents to lead in their drinking water. To prevent similar crises in other communities, the EPA must conduct mandatory, annual oversight of Lead and Copper Rule compliance. 
The EPA understood and agreed with our position, and before we even published this follow-up report, the EPA again revised its protocol for reviewing state water programs, making such oversight mandatory. We therefore did not have to issue a follow-up recommendation to the EPA, and we now consider the action complete and the recommendation appropriately closed in the Agency’s tracking system. 

Becky: That’s a positive outcome. Let’s move on to the second recommendation. Can you describe it and the potential impact?

Cara: Sure. Recommendation 6 in our 2018 report said that the Agency should – quote – provide regular training for EPA drinking water staff, managers, and senior leaders – unquote – on the Safe Drinking Water Act, its amendments, and Lead and Copper Rule revisions. Regular training on Safe Drinking Water Act and the Lead and Copper Rule is vital, because public health is at greater risk if the EPA staff — at all levels — are not fully aware of the EPA’s oversight and enforcement authorities. 

Becky: And in what way did your team find that the EPA did not fully address this recommendation?

Cara: Even though the EPA administered training on the Safe Drinking Water Act in response to our 2018 recommendation, it could not provide us with documentation of which employees attended. As a result, we could not determine whether the appropriate staff — including drinking water staff, managers, and senior leaders — attended.
A recommendation in our follow-up report addresses this lack of documentation. Specifically, we recommended that the EPA document and monitor attendance at the Safe Drinking Water Act trainings. The Agency agreed with this recommendation, and we agreed with the Agency’s proposed actions. When the EPA completes its actions for the follow-up recommendation, then Recommendation 6 of our 2018 report should be fully addressed.

Becky: Which leads us to the third recommendation in the 2018 report that the OIG maintains was not fully addressed by the Agency. Can you describe that one and its impact?

Cara: Of course. In our 2018 report, we outline how the EPA was not effectively receiving, assessing, and tracking the resolution of citizen complaints. The ability to assess and track citizen complaints is paramount, because such complaints can alert the Agency of violations of environmental regulations. As such, Recommendation 8 of our 2018 report said that the EPA should – quote – create a system that tracks citizen complaints and gathers information on emerging issues. The system should assess the risk associated with the complaints, including efficient and effective resolution. – unquote – 

Becky: And how did the EPA respond to that recommendation? 

Cara: Well, the EPA did develop a protocol for its Safe Drinking Water Hotline that includes risk assessment and resolution tracking, and so it was responsive to our 2018 recommendation as far as the Safe Drinking Water Hotline goes. But that hotline is not the only way citizens contact the EPA about concerns. The EPA’s Report a Violation online system receives citizen tips on a range of environmental concerns. The EPA did not develop a protocol for this Report a Violation system, and so was unresponsive to our 2018 recommendation in that regard.
This finding led to our second recommendation in our follow-up report: that the EPA – quote – incorporate controls into Report a Violation system to assess the risk associated with tips retained for action by the EPA and to track when and how the resolutions of those tips are achieved. – unquote –

Becky: And what is the status of that follow-up recommendation?

Cara: We initially had recommended that the Agency assess and track all tips received by the Report a Violation system, but the EPA pointed out that it does not have the resources to prepare an assessment for each of the 14,000 tips it receives every year via that system. The Agency also told us that it refers a large number of these tips to the states, which are responsible for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. We therefore revised our recommendation for our final report to address only those tips retained by the EPA. The Agency has 60 days after the report issuance date to respond to this revised recommendation, and we will post updates to our website.

Becky: Cara, could you tell us what impact these new recommendations will have?

Cara: We believe that —through better training of EPA staff, at all levels, and by improving the processes that the EPA uses to address and track the citizen tips it retains — these recommendations will help the EPA fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment.   

Becky: Thank you so much for sharing your time and expertise with us today, Cara. And thank you to our listeners for joining us. For more information about this and other OIG work, you can find all of our public reports — as well as any updates on thos