Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Audit of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

June 15, 2020 · Department of Environmental Protection · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published June 15, 2020 Audit covers July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2019 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The audit found DEP was late or incomplete in sharing water-quality information and did not fully ensure required toxic-use filings were submitted.
source
“DEP did not submit reports on surface water quality data or make these data available online.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection covering July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, findings, and recommendations for the audit period, July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors checked whether DEP followed toxics-use reporting rules and federal water-quality reporting requirements.

“In this performance audit, we examined DEP’s compliance with the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act, including the proper submission of toxics use reports and plan summaries, as well as the quality assurance program plan related to the DEP Division of Watershed Management’s Watershed Planning Program and its requirements for submitting reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as required by the federal Clean Water Act.”
Why it matters

If DEP does not report water-quality data on time, the public and federal regulators have less current information about whether Massachusetts waters are polluted or safe for their intended uses.

“As a result, DEP is not providing EPA and the public with the information necessary to determine whether Massachusetts watersheds are impaired or are safe for their designated uses.”
What's in it for me?

This affects ordinary residents because DEP’s job includes protecting clean air, clean water, land, wetlands, coastal resources, and public health.

“DEP is the guarantor of the people’s right, under Article 97 of the Massachusetts constitution, to “clean air and water” and “the natural scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment.””
The bottom line

The auditor found two main problems: delayed water-quality reporting and weak follow-up on some required toxic-use filings.

“DEP did not ensure that all users of toxic substances, or toxics, filed biennial toxics use reduction plan summaries and annual toxics use reports.”
What happens next

The auditor recommended that DEP improve how it collects, validates, reports, and monitors required information.

“DEP should establish monitoring controls to ensure that these policies and procedures are followed.”
Why it's significant

The report matters because it found gaps in public environmental information and in DEP’s oversight of companies that use toxic substances.

“Without ensuring compliance with TURA, DEP cannot be certain that all toxics users in the Commonwealth are working toward and promoting TUR in their workplaces.”
Jargon, unpacked

A TMDL is basically a pollution limit: how much of a pollutant a water body can receive and still meet health standards.

“A TMDL is a calculation of the highest amount of a pollutant that a water body can take in and still meet standards for healthy systems.”

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

DEP did not submit required surface water quality reports or make related water quality data available online.
reporting timelinessrecordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: EPA and the public lacked timely information needed to determine whether Massachusetts watersheds were impaired or safe for designated uses.

Standard: Clean Water Act Sections 305(b), 303(d), and 106 require biennial reporting on water quality and impaired waters and annual updates of water quality information. ( Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act; Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; Section 106 of the Clean Water Act )

5 recommendations
  • DEP should reevaluate its data collection and processing methods to reduce time taken in performing manual processes, particularly data entry.agency: partially agreed
  • DEP should work to validate surface water quality information, use the information to compile the Integrated List of Waters Report and submit it to EPA on time, and upload the data within required timeframes, even in periods of employee turnover and changes in information systems.agency: partially agreed
  • DEP should consider using sources other than state-run laboratory services to test data samples.agency: partially agreed
  • DEP should consider using information from external sources that has been collected and reported in a valid manner.agency: partially agreed
  • DEP should finish implementing its new surface water quality database.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The finding is inaccurate as written, as MassDEP does complete and submit all required reports of water quality data to EPA and makes the validated data available online."
Auditor: "These facts are not disputed by DEP in its response; thus the information in this audit finding is accurate."
DEP did not ensure all toxics users filed required annual reports and biennial plan summaries.
reporting timelinessrecordkeeping/documentationinternal controlspublic safety

Why it matters: DEP cannot be certain that all toxics users in Massachusetts are working toward reducing toxics use in their workplaces.

Standard: Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act requirements and 310 CMR 50 require toxics users to file annual reports and biennial plan updates, and allow DEP enforcement for noncompliance. ( Section 50 of Title 310 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations; 310 CMR 50.32(1); 310 CMR 50.41(5); 310 CMR 50.04; Section 3 of Chapter 21I of the Massachusetts General Laws )

2 recommendations
  • DEP should develop policies and procedures regarding its process to ensure that toxics users have filed the required reports and plans.agency: agreed
  • DEP should establish monitoring controls to ensure that these policies and procedures are followed.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "MassDEP agrees that a central internal control document is necessary and is currently working on assembling all existing policies and procedures so these elements are readily accessible in one location."
Auditor: "Based on DEP’s response, our audit work in this area was beneficial to DEP, as it indicated that it will investigate, and presumably be able to resolve, this technology issue."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Department of Environmental Protection .

See this entity's page with all 3 audits →