-------
-------
UJ
(3
Office of Inspector General
Audit Report
WATER
Biosolids Management and Enforcement
2000-P-10
March 20,2000
5-EPA
1200
-------
Inspector General Division
Conducting the Audit
Headquarters Audit Division
Washington, D.C.
Regions covered
Program Offices Involved
All
Office of Water
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
MAR 2 0 2000
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Biosolids Management and Enforcement
Audit Report No. 2000-P-10
Michael Simmons M/uiA/v»*\ <5
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Internal Audits (2421)
J. Charles Fox
Assistant Administrator for Water (41 01 )
U.S.
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)
12
-------
identify any completed or planned actions related to the report's recommendations. For
corrective actions planned put not completed by the response date, reference to
specific milestone dates will assist in deciding whether to close this report.
We have no objection to the further release of this report to the public. Should you
or your staff have any questions, please contact John T. Walsh, Divisional Inspector
General, Headquarters Audit Division, on (202) 260-5113.
Attachment
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
Domestic sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid, or
liquid by-product generated during the treatment of
wastewater at municipal wastewater treatment plants.
These sewage treatment plants are referred to as
"publicly owned treatment works," or POTWs.
Domestic septage is the liquid or solid material
removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet,
type III marine sanitation device, or similar treatment
works that receives only domestic septage. Sewage
sludge includes domestic septage. The term
"biosolids" refers to sewage sludge that has been
treated and can be beneficially recycled. EPA
encourages land application of biosolids rather than
landfilling or incineration, and if applied properly,
biosolids help condition soil and provide a beneficial
use of waste. Land application means spraying or
spreading the material on the surface of the land,
injecting it below the surface, or incorporating it into
the soil. Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act
required EPA to establish regulations for the use and
disposal of sewage sludge. EPA issued the final rule,
40 CFR Part 503, Standards For The Use Or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge, on February 19,1993.
The biosolids program is delegated to Texas,
Oklahoma and Utah. In all other states, EPA is
responsible for biosolids oversight.
We conducted this review in response to an Office of
Water (OWJ request for an audit. The objectives of
our audit were to determine whether (1) EPA
oversight of biosolids land application can be more
effective, and (2) the Government Performance and
Results Act goal for biosolids is appropriate and
readily reportable. In this audit we did not review the
science and risk assessments related to Part 503.
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
RESULTS IN BRIEF
EPA does not have an effective program for ensuring
compliance with the land application requirements of
Part 503. Accordingly, while EPA promotes land
application, EPA cannot assure the public that current
land application practices are protective of human
health and the environment.
Under Part 503, about 3,700 of the nation's 16,000
POTWs must annually report to EPA regions:
information describing the concentration of pollutants,
the presence of pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses,
parasites), and the sludge's attractiveness to vectors
(e.g., rodents, flies, mosquitoes) that could transmit
pathogenic organisms to humans. In FY1998, EPA
reviewed only about 38% of the Part 503 reports
submitted by POTWs. EPA performs few biosolids
related inspections of POTW operations, virtually no
inspections of land application sites, and few records
inspections at POTWs or land appliers. EPA regions
do not maintain data on the cumulative amounts of
pollutants at land application sites, even though Part
503 requires maintaining this data. There is no
regional oversight of septage land application. The
biosolids program has been delegated to only three
states, and there is virtually no federal oversight of
state biosolids programs in nondelegated states.
Therefore, EPA does not have sufficient information
to determine compliance levels with the Part 503
regulatory requirements. This almost complete
absence of a federal presence in the biosolids
program results from the low priority given to biosolids
management by EPA's Office of Water (OW), and the
decision of EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) not to commit
enforcement resources to biosolids. This may result
in increased risks to the environment and human
health, and cause a loss of public confidence in the
biosolids program.
EPA is required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to set long-term and
annual goals, and to measure the results of its
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
FINAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
programs in annual reports to Congress. EPA
established a FY1999 annual performance goal that
50% of biosolids be beneficially reused. However,
OWs Clean Water Action Plan does not reflect the
priority to be given to biosolids land application even
though OW has established a GPRA land application
goal. EPA established this goal without defining
"beneficial reuse." The goal also does not measure
reductions in point source pollution, the subobjective
under which the goal was established. Further, the •
goal was established without identifying the resources
needed to achieve the goal, without clear guidance to
the regions on what data to gather, and without
describing verification and validation procedures.
Consequently, EPA regions are measuring progress
in different ways. Totaling these inconsistent
measurements does not provide a meaningful picture
of the national state of biosolids use and disposal
practices, and is not a useful decision making tool for
the biosolids program.
Although we believe our draft report
recommendations best address the concerns raised
in this report, recognizing the realities of competing
priorities and limited resources, we provide revised
recommendations for Chapter 2 of this report. These
recommendations are preliminary steps which will
improve the biosolids program/
We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for
OW and OECA provide, by the end of fiscal 2001, an
analysis of whether the Agency's proposed actions
provide a sufficient basis for assessing compliance
with Part 503 and assuring the public of the
protectiveness of land application practices. Our
suggested scope for this analysis, when completed,
will provide a basis for determining additional steps
that might be required to ensure that management of
biosolids is protective of human health and the
environment. We may conduct a follow-up review of
biosolids land application practices which would focus
in
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
on the effectiveness of the Agency's actions and the
quality of its analysis.
IV
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
ABBREVIATIONS vii
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 1
Introduction 1
Objectives 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology -. 4
Prior Audit Coverage 4
CHAPTER 2
Better Monitoring And Coordination Must Accompany
Promotion Of Biosolids Land Application 6
Most Part 503 Reports Are Not Reviewed 6
EPA Performs Few Biosolids Inspections
And Takes Few Enforcement Actions 8
EPA Regions Do Not Maintain Needed Site Inventories 11
EPA Regions Conduct No Oversight of Septage Land Application 12
Delegation Of The Biosolids Program Has Not Progressed 15
Low Risk Means Low Resources 16
EPA Efforts To Improve Biosolids Management 20
Opportunities To Improve Biosolids Management 21
Draft Recommendations 21
Final Recommendations 23
CHAPTER 3
Biosolids Goals And Performance Measures Are Not Useful
Management Tools 25
Beneficial Reuse Is Not Defined '. 25
The Biosofids Goal Does Not Contribute To
Reducing Point Source Pollution 26
Resource Needs Should Be Identified 29
The Midyear Progress Report For Biosolids Has Limitations 29
v Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Biosolids Data Verification Is Not Practical 30
Recommendations 30
APPENDIX A: Agency Response to the Draft Report 33
APPENDIX B: Distribution 48
VI
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
CPLR
CWA
BDMS.
EMS
FTE
GAO
GPRA
MOA
NBP
NPDES
OECA
ORD
OW
PCS
POTW
Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate
Clean Water Act
Biosolids Data Management System
Environmental Management System
Full Time Equivalent
General Accounting Office
Government Performance and Results Act
Memorandum Of Agreement
National Biosolids Partnership
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Research And Development
Office of Water
Permits Compliance System
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Vll
Report No. 2000-P-10
f Quarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
[This page was intentionally left blank]
VIll
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Objectives
Background
We conducted this review in response to the Office of
Water's request for an audit. The objectives of our
audit were to determine whether (1) EPA oversight of
biosolids land application is effective, and (2) the
Government Performance and Results Act goal for
biosolids is appropriate and readily reportable.
In 1977, Congress reauthorized the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The CWA prohibits discharging pollutants
from a point source1 into waters of the United States,
except in accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Facilities, including wastewater treatment plants, that
discharge directly into waters of the United States
must comply with NPDES permits while entities, such
as industrial facilities, that contribute to the volume of
wastewater treated by direct dischargers, must
comply with pretreatment standards. The process
that a wastewater facility uses to treat water so that it
can be directly discharged results in the production of
"residuals" or sewage sludge. CWA §405(d) required
EPA to establish regulations for the use and disposal
of sewage sludge. The final rule, 40 CFR Part 503,
Standards For The Use Or Disposal Of Sewage
Sludge, was issued on February 19,1993.
Domestic sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid, or
liquid by-product generated during the treatment of
wastewater at municipal wastewater treatment plants.
These sewage treatment plants are referred to as
"publicly owned treatment works," or POTWs.
Domestic septage is the liquid or solid material
'Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made
ditches.
1
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet,
type Ell marine sanitation device, or similar treatment
works that receive only domestic septage. Sewage
sludge includes domestic septage. Sewage sludge
can either be (1) used as a fertilizer or soil conditioner
or (2) disposed of as waste in a landfill, through
incineration, or by other methods.
EPA refers to sewage sludge that has been treated
by removing water, killing pathogens (disease
causing organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and
parasites), and reducing sludge's attractiveness to
vectors (e.g. rodents, flies, and mosquitoes) as
biosolids. EPA estimates that POTWs generate 7.5
million dry metric tons of biosolids annually, and that
54% of biosolids is land applied. EPA encourages
land application of biosolids over landfilling or
incineration, and if applied properly, biosolids help
condition soil and provide a beneficial use of waste.
Land application of biosolids means spraying or
spreading of material on the surface of the land,
injecting it below the surface, or incorporating it into
the soil. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
Part 503) establishes procedures to determine
biosolids quality and land application methods. Part
503 requirements include general requirements,
pollutant limits, management practices (e.g., length of
time before crops may be harvested for consumption
or before animals may graze in a field), operational
standards, and requirements for the frequency of
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting.
The stringency of the regulatory requirements
associated with land application depends upon the
quality of the biosolids. EPA refers to biosolids that
meet the most stringent pollutant/pathogen/vector
limits as exceptional quality (EQ) biosolids. Part 503
places no restrictions on land application of EQ
biosolids. Biosolids that fail to meet any of the most
stringent parameters are Non-EQ biosolids.
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Most of the requirements governing land application
under Part 503 affect preparers and appliers of bulk,2
non-EQ biosolids. All POTWs must keep records for
five years describing pollutant concentrations, how
pathogen reduction requirements were met, and
whether and how the biosolids's attractiveness to
vectors was reduced. By February 19th of each year,
approximately 3,700 POTWs must report this
information to the permitting authority. Land appliers
must keep records for five years describing site
management practices, site restrictions, and if the
preparer has not performed certain vector attraction
reduction steps, the applier must perform and record
them.
Although most states have established some type of
biosolids management program, only Oklahoma,
Texas, and Utah have received full or partial program
delegation. Therefore, except in these three states,
EPA remains the permitting authority responsible for
the implementation of Part 503.
The Office of Water (OW), the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and Office of
Research and Development (ORD) hold the major
responsibilities for the biosolids program. OW, as
National Program Manager, is responsible for (1)
development and periodic review of regulations, (2)
issuance of permits, and (3) delegation of the
program to states. OECA is responsible for reviewing
annual report submissions, entering relevant data into
the Permits Compliance System (PCS)3, inspecting
facilities and land application sites, providing
compliance assistance and undertaking enforcement
2The term "bulk sewage sludge" refers to sewage sludge (biosolids)
applied in quantities greater than one metric ton, generally by
commercial and municipal appliers to agricultural land, tree and turf
farms, golf courses, parks, and reclamation sites.
JPCS is a national computerized information management system for
NPDES data that tracks permit issuance, permit limits, monitoring
data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES.
3 Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Scope and Methodology
Prior Audit Coverage
actions. ORD is revising pathogen reduction and
vector attraction reduction guidance; researching
biosolids issues; providing technical support to EPA,
states and industry; and through its Pathogen
Equivalency Committee, determining if proposed
pathogen reduction practices are equivalent to those
included in Part 503.
OWs letter suggesting a review of EPA's oversight
and management of the biosolids program highlighted
the land application of biosolids and also referenced a
June 1997 Cable News Network (CNN) investigative
series which described the negative aspects of
biosolids use. Therefore, our review of the biosolids
program focused on implementation of Part 503 for
land application and did not address any other
disposal option. We did not review the science and
risk assessments related to Part 503.
Our review was conducted from September 1998,
through July 1999. We interviewed OWand OECA
Headquarters representatives, collected biosolids
information from all regions, and visited Regions 3,4,
5, 6 and 8. We visited several major POTWs and
contacted several state coordinators of biosolids
programs. We attended the 19th Annual Pumper &
Cleaner Environmental Expo, a septage industry
conference and trade show, and the 1999 National
Biosolids Conference, a conference for state and
federal biosolids program officials.
Our audit work was performed in accordance with the
Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision)
issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States. We reviewed Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act controls related to the audit objectives.
There are no prior OIG audits focusing on biosolids
management. A 1990 General Accounting Office
Report No. 2000-P-W
-------
(GAO) report4 identified potential problems for the
implementation of a national biosolids program,
including the possibility of continued low state
participation in the program, the probability of
inadequate resources and the need for development
of an effective enforcement program. GAO
concluded that key prerequisites for meeting EPA's
interim program goals which faced fundamental
problems were "(1) strong participation in this
voluntary program by states, (2) oversight by EPA
regions of participating states and direct involvement
where states do not participate, and (3) oversight of
both regional and state activity by EPA
headquarters". GAO also recommended the
establishment of a strong enforcement program.
These issues are still relevant. Therefore, Chapters 2
and 3 of this report discuss how implementation of
GAO's recommendations could still help strengthen
the current biosolids program.
4Water Pollution: Serious Problems Confront Emerging Municipal
Sludge Management Program, GAO/RCED-90-57, March 5, 1990.
5 Report No. 2QOQ-P-1Q
-------
CHAPTER 2
Better Monitoring And Coordination Must Accompany
Promotion Of Biosoiids Land Application
Most Part 503 Reports
Are Not Reviewed
EPA has not taken necessary steps to reasonably
ensure compliance with Part 503 requirements. EPA
reviewed fewer than 40% of the approximately 3,700
Part 503 reports submitted by POTWs in FY 1998.
EPA performs almost no sludge related inspections of
POTW operations and virtually no inspections of land
application sites. EPA regions do not maintain site
records needed to ensure that appliers do not exceed
cumulative pollutant limits. There is no regional
oversight of septage land application. The biosolids
program has been delegated to only three states, and
there is virtually no federal oversight of state biosolids
management programs in nondelegated states.
Therefore, EPA does not have sufficient information
to determine compliance levels with the Part 503
regulatory requirements. This almost complete
absence of a federal presence in the biosolids
program results from the low priority given to biosolids
management by EPA's Office of Water (OW), and the
decision of EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) not to commit
enforcement resources to biosolids. This may result
in increased noncompliance with Part 503
requirements, which would increase risks to the
environment and human health, and cause a loss of
public confidence in the biosolids program.
Part 503 requires submission of an annual report from
appropriate POTWs but does not specify a standard
report format. There is wide variation in both the
reporting formats and the amount of information
submitted. Since a number of states have developed
standardized reporting formats for their biosolids
management programs, POTWs in those states often
duplicate the state form for federal reporting. Some
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
EPA regions require the use of Discharge Monitoring
Report forms for Part 503 reporting.5 Some POTWs,
in addition to submitting specific information on
pollutant levels and pathogen and vector reduction,
send in copies of laboratory analyses of sludge
samples. This can result in far more data submitted
to EPA regions than Part 503 requires.
Report reviews can provide initial indications of non-
compliance with certain Part 503 requirements,
including metals concentrations and pathogen and
vector attraction reduction requirements. Reviews
may be followed by more information gathering,
compliance assistance, or, in some cases,
enforcement actions. Therefore, we contacted sludge
coordinators in each region to learn about the Part
503 report review process. The extent of reviews
varied by Region from tracking submission dates to
reviewing calculations. For FY 1998, we asked how
many annual reports EPA reviewed, and for estimates
of how long report reviews took. Table 1 (see page 8)
summarizes the responses, which ranged from no
reports reviewed to all reports reviewed.
Information provided in an annual report may be
entered into a data system for review, analysis, and
tracking. Region 8 took the lead in developing a
Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS). The
system software stores general information on each
facility, biosolids treatment provided, use/disposal
methods, land application site information, cumulative "
load tracking, biosolids monitoring data, and
information on pathogen and vector attraction
reduction. Data needed to measure compliance with
Part 503 can be entered by POTWs, states, or EPA
regional staff. Presently, anyone can obtain the
BDMS software via the Internet.6 OW plans to allow
the public to access the entire national database via
5 A Discharge Monitoring Report is the EPA national form for
reporting self-monitoring results by permittees.
6The BDMS Internet Main Page is http://www.biosolidsinfo.com/.
7 Report No. 20QO-P-10
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
. Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
the Internet, a step that OW hopes will promote
increased public confidence in the biosolids program.
If EPA is successful in getting POTWs and states to
input information, EPA regional staff will be able to
review the data more quickly.
Table 1: FY 1998 EPA Review Of Part 503 Annual Reports
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
No. of
Reports
200
331
485
700
700
418
210
130
320
166
3,660
No. of Reports
Reviewed by EPA
10 to 15
240
0
75
42
418
2107
130
280
O8
1,405 - 1,410
Estimated Time Required
to Review Each Report
30 minutes to 1 hour
15 minutes to "days"
None
2 to 3 hours
A few minutes to a couple hours.
30-45 minutes
5 minutes to over an hour
30-40 minutes for data entry, then 1-
2 hours for foilow-up if necessary
5-1 5 minutes, plus follow up effort
Not applicable
EPA Performs Few
Biosolids Inspections
And Takes Few
Enforcement Actions
Table 2 shows the universe of 16,024 POTWs by
region, enforcement FTEs, inspections, and
enforcement actions reported to us by regional
biosolids coordinators; the table does not show the
number of land application sites or land appliers.
EPA regional offices conduct few biosolids
inspections and take few enforcement actions. The
7Region 7 indicated that all reports will be reviewed, two-thirds have
been reviewed to date.
8Region 10 indicated that Part 503 reports are reviewed by the states.
8 Report No. 2000-P-W
-------
Table 2:
FY 1998 Biosolids Inspections and Enforcement Actions
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
POTWs9
550
704
1,368
2,395
3,298
2,538
2,403
1,264
823
681
16,024
Enforcement
FTEs
o.i
1.1
0.5
2.0
1.5
0.75
0.5
0
0.5
0.1 .
7.05
Inspections
0
14
2
. 24
42
2"
7
0
6812
1
167
Enforcement
Actions10
0
19
1
34
9
4
13
0
3
r
0
83
primary reason for this is lack of resources. There
are only 18.25 FTE assigned to the biosolids program
in the regions. Regional data provided to us indicate
that only 7.05 FTE are allocated for inspections and
9AH data on FTEs, inspections and enforcements were provided to us
by regional staff. The estimate of 16,024 POTWs was provided by
OW Headquarters, based on the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey.
'"Enforcements include formal and informal actions.
"Region 6 reported that there were 95 FY1998 NPDES inspections
including some aspect of biosolids management, but there were only 2
biosolids-specific inspections.
l2Region 9's total of 68 inspections includes 50 inspections of biosolids
preparers and 18 land application or surface disposal sites. Region 9
also reported that it issued 50 "compliance assurance actions - notices
of failure to provide adequate monitoring or reporting."
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
enforcement, with the remainder assigned to permits,
technical assistance, and other duties.
Since appliers have no reporting requirements, no
information would be provided to EPA without a
specific request or an on-site inspection. Only
through actual inspections of land application sites
would EPA gain information about compliance with
Part 503 management requirements, such as use of
buffer zones, avoidance of wetlands, recognition of
harvesting restrictions and grazing restrictions.
Table 2 shows biosolids inspections and enforcement
actions. The table shows that Region 4, with the
highest number of enforcement FTEs (2), had the
highest number of enforcement actions (34), while the
regions with 0.1 or fewer enforcement FTE reported 0
enforcement actions. The table also shows that there
is no correlation between the number of POTWs and
the number of FTEs.
GAO expressed concern in 1990 about the lack of a
strong biosolids enforcement program:
... [A] fundamental element of the sludge
program will be strong enforcement by EPA
regions and delegated states. Effective
enforcement serves as a deterrent to violations
and, when violations do occur, helps to ensure
that appropriate corrective action is taken in a
timely manner. Without effective enforcement,
the consequences of violating permit limits and
other program requirements are greatly
diminished - making it much less likely that
these requirements will be observed.... Among
the essential elements of an enforcement
program are (1) criteria that allow regulators to
set enforcement priorities, (2) criteria that
identify what type of enforcement actions are
appropriate and when they should be taken,
10
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
EPA Regions Do Not
Maintain Needed
Site Inventories
and (3) effective oversight over EPA regional
and state enforcement by headquarters.13
Part 503 Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rates
(CPLRs) establish the maximum amount of an
inorganic pollutant contained in biosolids that can be
land applied. For example, the pollution
concentration limit for Arsenic is 41 kilograms per
hectare. Before biosolids subject to CPLRs are
applied to land, the applier must contact the
permitting authority for the state in which the biosolids
will be applied,14 to determine the cumulative amount
of each pollutant applied to the site since July 20,
1993. CPLR biosolids may be applied to a site if no
CPLR biosolids have been applied previously, or if
CPLR biosolids have been applied and the
cumulative amount of pollutants applied to the site is
known to total less than the prescribed limits. If
CPLR biosolids have been applied, but the
cumulative amount of each pollutant is not known,
then additional CPLR biosolids cannot be applied to
the site.
Land appliers must indefinitely maintain records
documenting compliance with CPLRs. These records
must be readily accessible to state and EPA
inspectors. Prior to the initial application of CPLR
biosolids, the applier must provide written notice to
the permitting authority. The permitting authority is
required to maintain and provide access to the notice.
EPA regional offices do not maintain the records
needed to inform potential land appliers of the
cumulative amount of each pollutant applied to sites.
Instead, regional personnel told us that they rely on
13Serious Problems Confront Emerging Municipal Sludge
Management Program, GAO/RCED-90-57, B-236805, March 5, 1990,
page 28-29.
'^Except for Texas, Oklahoma and Utah, which have approved sludge
management programs, the "permitting authority" is the EPA Regional
Administrator.
11 Report No, 2000-P-10
-------
EPA Regions Conduct
No Oversight of Septage
Land Application
the states to maintain such records. But there are no
formal agreements between regions and states
pertaining to the maintenance or sharing of CPLR
information. If EPA regions do not maintain needed
site records, or ensure that states do so, land appliers
may be deprived of legitimate land application sites.
Part 503 defines domestic sewage to include
domestic septage, and therefore treated domestic
septage is also considered to be biosolids. However,
because the septage pumping industry is significantly
different from POTWs and the Part 503 requirements
differ for septage pumpers versus POTWs, septage
oversight and enforcement issues are discussed
separately from issues relating to biosolids generated
by POTWs.
EPA estimates that 68 million Americans are served
by on-site septic and other treatment facilities; that
these facilities generate 12.4 billion gallons (1.6
million dry metric tons) of septage annually; that 67%
of the septage pumped from septic tanks goes to
POTWs for treatment and that 33% is land applied as
septage or further treated by private haulers.
When domestic septage is applied to nonpublic
contact sites (agricultural land, forest, or reclamation
sites), the Part 503 treatment requirements for land
application of septage are comparatively simpler than
those for sewage sludge; the material is not tested for
metals, and if incorporated during application, no
additional treatment, such as liming, is necessary for
compliance with Part 503. However, when domestic
septage is handled other than by land application to
nonpublic contact sites, the same requirements apply
to both septage and sewage sludge. Under Part 503
there are no reporting requirements for septage land
application.
Four billion gallons of septage are land applied each
year. However, EPA regional offices conduct no
oversight of septage land application. EPA does not
regularly collect information on the amount of septage
12
Report No. 2000-P-W
-------
generated or its method of disposal. EPA conducts
virtually no inspections of septage haulers' records or
land application practices.
In February 1999, 9,290 septage and sludge
pumpers, tank cleaners and haulers representing
3,466 companies gathered in Nashville, Tennessee
for the 19th Annual Pumper & Cleaner Environmental
Expo. This event provides technical information to a
significant number of the industry in one location. A
pumper and owner of a septage treatment facility
presented an educational session on how to comply
with EPA's regulations governing land application of
septage to an audience of over 500.
After the presentation, over 60 of the attendees
accepted the speaker's invitation to meet for a
discussion of the industry's difficulties in complying
with EPA's requirements. Two OIG audit staff were
present at the meeting. Participants described how
local land application bans, or the unwillingness of
POTWs to accept septage, caused some haulers to
drive significant distances to dispose of their waste.
These types of restrictions result in higher
transportation costs, which are often passed on to the
septic tank owner. Pumpers who want to comply with
local, state and federal regulations governing land
application bear financial burdens, including costs of
lime stabilization; equipment cost for spreading or
injecting septage; licensing fees; and in some
locations, certification fees. Pumpers who comply
with all requirements must factor in these costs when
they set their fees.
Septage disposers who do not comply with Part 503
need not spend the same amount of money as their
competitors who do comply. If a hauler uses low
quality or no lime, incorporates septage into the land
monthly rather than after each application, mixes
septage with industrial waste and still disposes of it as
septage, or even illegally dumps septage down a
manhole or in a remote area, profit margins can
increase dramatically. In this industry, as in other
13
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
industries, individuals complying with the regulations
are at an economic disadvantage with those who do
not comply and receive no enforcement penalties.
The attendees who discussed these matters with us
stated consistently that it was important to the health
of their businesses for EPA to maintain an
enforcement presence.
There are approximately 30,000 companies in the
septage industry. Expo attendees told us that they
have repeatedly asked for enforcement of Part 503
requirements. The editor of the industry publication
(circulation 22,000) called the OIG to ask for
information on enforcement cases specific to the
industry. The editor wanted to publicize these cases
as a deterrent to those in the industry not following
Part 503 requirements. We asked several regional
enforcement officials if they knew of any completed
cases. The standard response was that states would
be better able to provide this information.
At the Environmental Exposition we were given
copies of a newspaper article, which reported
exposure and prosecution (by a state) of a septage
pumper who illegally dumped millions of gallons of
waste. We arranged to have the OIG hotline number
published in the industry newspaper.. Procedures
were established for taking these calls and for
referring them. We first discussed referring them to
OECA's Criminal Enforcement Division. However, the
Director stated that these type of cases were not of
federal interest. We then worked with regional
enforcement personnel to address these complaints.
Many of the callers to the hotline were from within the
industry. One complainant claimed to have a video of
illegal dumping. Another offered to escort state
officials to the illegal dump site. Several callers
expressed frustration about their inability to get local,
state, or federal officials to take any action. One
region wrote the following to us:
14
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
Delegation Of The
Biosolids Program
Has Not Progressed
It should be noted that while we are actively
investigating this particular hotline request, the
level of effort generally required to conduct
such a follow-up is beyond the capability of the
resources currently available. A more typical
response to an issue of this nature would be
our referral of the matter to local authorities
and a follow-up call to those authorities within
a month to six weeks to learn the outcome of
any type of local action. Efforts to deal with
non-compliant septage haulers need to be
localized and immediate. In [several states in
this region], our state environmental agency
counterpart is not the state entity that has
responsibility for regulating either the haulers
or the local governmental units which may
actually license the haulers.... We are working
with our Office of Regional Counsel to develop
some innovative uses of the legal authorities
and tools currently available to us under the
Clean Water Act regarding collecting penalties
from non-responsive haulers and/or possibly
enforcing against the county or state health
departments that license septage haulers who
may subsequently not be operating in
compliance with Part 503.
Given that the septage industry includes many small,
mobile haulers, we recognize that it may not be
practical for EPA to maintain a "hands on"
enforcement presence in each state. Working with
the septage industry and the states by publicizing
violations would provide a deterrent effect with a
minor resource investment.
States can (and many have) establish biosolids
oversight programs without EPA delegation, but
without delegation there is no requirement for states
to share information with the EPA. Presently, only
Texas, Utah and Oklahoma have EPA approved
biosolids management programs. There are currently
nine applications pending. One reason for the slow
pace of delegation is EPA's objection to state self-
15
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Low Risk Means
Low Resources
audit laws, under which, in response to voluntarily
disclosures of violations, states respond with
compliance assistance rather than enforcement.
Some states indicate that lack of additional funding
for accepting delegation of the program is an obstacle
to delegation.
The almost complete absence of a federal presence
in biosolids oversight and enforcement can be
attributed to OWs assessment, and OECA's
acceptance, of the relatively low risk to human health
and the environment from biosolids. The inadequacy
of resources and its effects were pointed out by GAO
10 years ago. In March 1990, GAO's report on EPA's
interim implementation strategy15 identified two
problems that if not addressed could contribute to
delays and inefficiencies in EPA's "Municipal Sludge
Management Program." GAO stated that:
Among the potential obstacles ... are (1)
continued questions over the sufficiency of
resources to fully implement the program, (2)
the need to develop an effective enforcement
program to deter program violations and to
bring about compliance when violations do
occur....16
GAO elaborated on the lack of program resources by
examining the effect of insufficient resources on state
programs:
... [We] observed that insufficient resources
were a contributing factor toward low state
I5ln 1989, EPA expected that final regulations governing pollutant
concentration limits in sludge and acceptable management practices.
would not be issued until 1991. Under the "interim implementation
strategy" EPA began immediately incorporating sludge conditions into
NPDES permits.
'^Serious Problems Confront Emerging Municipal Sludge
Management Program, GAO/RCED-90-57, B-236805, March 5, 1990,
page 25.
16
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
participation in the interim sludge program and
toward incomplete implementation of program
requirements by EPA regions. Likewise, a
major factor affecting the success of the
permanent sludge program will be the extent to
which states participate - and the sufficiency of
EPA's resources if they do not... [BJased on
past experiences of other environmental
programs, as well as the types of problems
affecting the interim sludge program... there is
cause for concern as to whether EPA will have
sufficient resources to fully implement a
national sludge program.17
Seven years later, little had changed. Speaking to
the July 8-10, 1997, 3rd Annual OECA National
Conference, the then OW Assistant Administrator
said:
I have this other problem of ensuring that
[biosolids are] actually meeting [Part 503]
standards, and if not, we will do something
about it.... And yet, when I do risk
assessments, or any kind of work at an
Agency-level on what our priorities are, there
will always be a low risk because we have
studied biosolids for the last 25 years. So, it
always gets cut in the budget.... [If] we think
that the environmentally preferable thing is to
not burn [biosolids] or put them in landfills, but
to beneficially recycle them into the
environment, we'll have to think of this other
concept of being able to provide the
assurances that [it] is safe.... We're diligent in
deterring those that don't do the right thing in a
National sense.... Why isn't this an important
part of the enforcement, deterrence, and
compliance assurance aspect of our job? I
think it is.
17
Ibid.
17
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
The former OW Assistant Administrator indicated that
EPA's lack of information caused a loss of public
confidence in the biosolids program. He requested
that OECA provide an increased biosolids presence.
His April 29,1998, memorandum to OECA stated:
The low risk associated with using biosolids
previously caused us to divest many of the
resources assigned to biosolids oversight and
management in OW, OECA, and the regions.
While some resource reduction is prudent for
lower risk situations, at least some among the
public perceive that risks from biosolids use
and disposal are high, that biosolids qualities
are poor, that inspections and enforcement are
small to nonexistent, and that EPA has limited
knowledge about what is going on.... Even
though risks associated with biosolids recycling
are low, the lack of adequate information to
provide better understanding among the public
is causing high-level concern and rejection of
beneficial reuse. Such rejection can impair the
ability of wastewater treatment facilities to
adequately treat wastewater causing
noncompliance not only with respect to
biosolids management but also with respect to
water quality.
The current OW Assistant Administrator echoed his
predecessor's call for a stronger biosolids
enforcement presence. On Decembers, 1998, the
current OW Assistant Administrator indicated to
OECA that he considers biosolids to be OWs number
three priority, in part because:
Key to the success of beneficial reuse of
biosolids is ensuring that the biosolids program
has credibility with the public.... In addition to
the public concern, there are several
indications that neither the Agency nor the
States is making a sufficient effort to assure
that wastewater treatment facilities are
complying with the regulations. To insure that
18 Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
the benefits of beneficial reuse of biosolids are
maximized, overseeing the quality of the
biosolids being land applied and assuring that
the regulations governing land application are
properly enforced needs to be a priority.18
OECA Headquarters commits few resources to
biosolids enforcement, a decision referred to as
"disinvestment." OECA explains that there are more
regulated communities than can be adequately
overseen with its available resources. Rather than
spread its limited resources so broadly that only token
efforts can be made in several areas, OECA decided
to concentrate its efforts in a few areas other than
biosolids, where it feels it can make a large impact.
OECA considers biosolids to be relatively low risk,
and notes that biosolids are not mentioned in OWs
Clean Water Action Plan19 and are not a Memoranda
of Agreement (MOA) priority.20
EPA promotes biosoiids as beneficial material when
used properly (in accordance with Part 503), while
having no ability to ensure/enforce proper biosolids
use. If biosolids are not used properly, certain risks
increase. Contaminated or improperly handled
biosolids can result in pollutants re-entering the
environment. There can be adverse effects on
surface and ground water, wetlands, and on human
health. Contaminants can leach into existing or
potential potable water sources. Biosolids containing
high levels of pathogenic organisms can contaminate
soil, water, crops, livestock, fish and shellfish.
''Memorandum from the OW Assistant Administrator, to the Principal
Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA, December 9, 1998, Subject:
OWs Review of FY2000/2001OECA MOA Draft Priorities.
19The Clean Water Action Plan describes EPA's approach to providing
"fishable and swimmable" waters to all.Americans.
20MOAs, negotiated between OECA and each EPA region, outline
enforcement and compliance assurance activities, priorities and
programs that will be implemented to achieve program goals.
19
Report No. 2000-P-lO
-------
EPA Efforts To Improve
Biosolids Management
A loss of public confidence in the biosolids program
can lead to restrictive local ordinances and bans on
land application. In December 1998, a trade journal
reported that jn over half the states, more than 50
percent of biosolids are beneficially used, with the
practice increasing in 30 states. At the same time, 18
states reported that local restrictions or outright bans
have been adopted. The effects of such restrictions
include increased hauling distances or a need to find
land application sites in other jurisdictions.
EPA has undertaken initiatives aimed at improving
biosolids management. In 1997, EPA, the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and
the Water Environment Federation formed the
National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) to promote
sound biosolids management practices. NBP, funded
by a $900,000 congressional earmark in EPA's FY
1999 budget, promotes voluntary adoption by POTWs
of an Environmental Management System (EMS).
EMS includes a set of good management practices, a
program of independent third-party verification, and
citizen input which NBP believes will result in
compliance with all applicable regulations and foster
public acceptance of biosolids beneficial use. But
EMS, at an implementation cost of up to $20,000 per
POTW, may be too expensive for many of the roughly
12,000 small POTWs, nor is it likely to have any
impact on the 4 billion gallons of septage that is land
applied. EMS, which hopefully will raise compliance
for large POTWs, is not a substitute for an adequate
enforcement program.
BDMS (discussed on page 7) is a new system that
has pot yet been widely adopted. We talked to
regional and state personnel who indicated that while
they think that BDMS is a good system, they lack the
staff to perform data entry. OW hopes that POTWs
will be willing to perform data entry and electronic
submission of Part 503 annual reports to states and
EPA. Although BDMS could be modified to track
enforcement data, it is not used for this purpose.
Currently, OECA records enforcement actions in
20
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
Opportunities To Improve
Biosolids Management
Draft Recommendations
PCS. EPA is upgrading PCS, with implementation
expected to take place in 2003. OW and OECA have
not determined whether BDMS will be absorbed into
PCS, or function as a separate system.
EPA regions can increase public confidence in the
biosolids program by maintaining a minimal federal
enforcement presence in exchange for sufficient state
information to manage the program and provide
effective oversight. Depending on what information
states collect for their own purposes, sufficient
information may simply mean providing the EPA
region with the same data states use internally to
assess risk and set priorities. In these cases, there
would be no new data collection and reporting
burden.
Where regions are unable to draw informed
conclusions about the level of compliance from
available data, regions should plan to allocate
sufficient resources to gain that knowledge. Absent
state delegation, the EPA Regional Administrator is
the permitting authority. If EPA cannot reach
conclusions from state data, EPA would need to
develop alternative means of ensuring that biosolids
generators and land applters comply with Part 503.
We fully appreciate the resource constraints that all
parties face. Information sharing is the least resource
intensive step that the states and EPA can take to
meet their oversight responsibility and accomplish
land application goals.
The Assistant Administrators for OW and OECA
provided written comments on the draft report, which
appear as Appendix A. Although we believe our draft
- report recommendations best address the concerns
raised in this report, recognizing the realities of
competing priorities and limited resources, we offer
revised recommendations which are preliminary steps
to improve the biosolids program.
21
Report No. 2000-P-IO
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
Draft Report
Recommendation 2-1
Agency Response
Draft Report
Recommendation 2-2
Agency Response
Draft Report
Recommendation 2-3
Agency Response
Draft Report
Recommendation 2-4
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Water work with regions and states to develop and
implement measures to determine compliance with
Part 503.
OW responded that OECA would address issues
relating to the level of compliance. OECA indicated
that although no OECA resources are specifically
identified for biosolids enforcement, OECA would
review, on a case by case basis, any information
referred to it relating to violations of laws criminally
enforced by the Agency
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Water instruct regions to maintain, or formally
encourage that states maintain, Cumulative Pollutant
Loading Rate data.
OW does not plan to implement this recommendation,
stating that most of the biosolids that are land applied
are of such quality that CPLR tracking is not
. necessary. OW supports the development of the
BDMS which will enable wastewater utilities, States,
Regions, and others to store and monitor biosolids
data including site-specific CPLR information.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Water encourage delegation of the biosolids program.
OW does not expect to devote significant resources
to encouraging the Regions to delegate the biosolids
program to the States. OW feels its efforts would be
better spent in improving communication between the
States and Regions, documenting State efforts
devoted to the regulation and oversight of biosolids
use and disposal practices, and working with State
and local agencies to increase the use of
environmental management systems.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance implement
GAO's 1990 recommendation to establish an effective
enforcement program. As GAO explained:
22
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
Draft Report
Recommendation 2-5
Agency Response to Draft
Recommendations 2-4 & 2-5
Final Recommendations
To improve the prospects for an effective
permanent sludge program, we recommend
that the Administrator, EPA, take measures to
ensure that a strong enforcement component
is in place.... Among the key elements that
should be included are (1} criteria for
significant noncompliance so that enforcement
priorities can be determined, (2) criteria for
timely and appropriate enforcement so that the
type and timing of enforcement is known to
both regulators and POTWs, and (3) effective
oversight of EPA regional and state
enforcement efforts by headquarters.
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Work with
the septage industry and state and local governments
so that septage haulers who violate Part 503 receive
appropriate penalties, and publicize this information
for its deterrent effect.
OECA believes that it would be unwise to divert
scarce resources from the higher risk priorities
identified in the Clean Water Action Plan to carry out
the specific recommendations of the IG with respect
to biosolids. However, OECA will continue to respond
to limited Regional requests for assistance in
biosolids enforcement, and is developing detailed
audit protocols (i.e., a series of review steps) for the
NPDES program, which will cover the biosolids
program in detail.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for
the Offices of Water and Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance provide, by the end of fiscal
2001, an analysis of whether the Agency's proposed
actions provide a sufficient basis for assessing
compliance with Part 503 and assuring the public of
the protectiveness of land application practices. That
evaluation should include a scope of work and the
basis for conclusions for each of the following actions
proposed by the Agency:
23
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
1. Continued participation in the National Biosolids
Partnership, including the development and adoption
of environmental management systems;
2. Use of the Biosolids Data Management System or
comparable system to store and monitor biosolids
data, including site-specific information on the
Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate;
3. Improved communications between the regions
and states;
4. Maintaining documentation of state activities for
regulating and overseeing biosolids use and disposal
practices;
5. Development of audit protocols to assist regions,
states , and the regulated community in assessing
compliance with biosolids regulations.
24
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
CHAPTER 3
Biosolids Goals and Performance Measures
Are Not Useful Management Tools
Beneficial Reuse
Is Not Defined
The Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA) requires EPA to set long-term and
annual goals, and to measure the results of its
programs in annual reports to Congress.21 EPA
established a FY1999 annual performance goal that
50% of biosolids be beneficially reused. However,
EPA established this goal without defining "beneficial
reuse." The goal also does not directly measure
reductions in point source pollution, the subobjective
under which it was established. Further, the goal was
established without identifying the resources needed
to achieve the goal, without clear guidance to the
regions on what data to gather, and without .
describing verification and validation procedures.
Consequently, EPA regions are measuring progress
in different ways. Totaling these inconsistent
measurements does not provide a meaningful picture
of the national state of biosolids use and disposal
practices, and is not a useful decision making tool for
the biosolids program.
OW did not define "beneficial reuse" when it created
its biosolids goal. Beneficial reuse could refer to any
recycling of biosolids such as land application or
incorporation into another material (e.g., for
construction). EPA issued a definition of "beneficial
use" which predates Part 503. Under that definition:
"Beneficial use" means any application of
sludge to land specifically designed to take
advantage of the nutrient and other
characteristics of this material to improve soil
2'The first Annual Performance Report is due March 31,2000.
25 Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
The Biosoiids Goal Does
Not ContributeTo Reducing
Point Source Pollution
fertility or structure and thereby further some
natural resource management objective.22
For GPRA reporting purposes, EPA regions are
reporting biosolids that are land applied. Therefore,
although OW has not defined beneficial reuse, the
remainder of this discussion equates beneficial reuse
with land application.
GPRA requires an annual performance plan covering
each program activity set forth in an agency's budget.
The plan must include performance goals; describe
the operational processes and resources required to
meet the performance goals; establish performance
indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the
relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of
each program activity; provide a basis for comparing
actual program results with the established
performance goals; and describe the means used to
verify and validate measured values.
EPA has established the following long-term GPRA
goals and objectives:
• Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
• Objective 3: Reduce Loadings and Air Deposition
• Subobjective 3.1: By 2005, annual point source
loadings from Combined Sewer Overflows,
POTWs, and industrial sources will be reduced
by 30% from 1992 levels.
To achieve subobjective 3.1, EPA established a
FY1999 annual performance goal that 50% of
biosolids are'beneficially reused, and two
performance measures, (1) the number of POTWs
that are beneficially reusing all or part of their
biosolids and (2) where data exists, the percent of
biosolids generated that are beneficially reused. As
22
Interagency Policy on Beneficial Use of Municipal Sewage Sludge
on Federal Land, 56 FR 33186, July 18, 1991.
26
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
explained in the 1999 Annual Plan Request to the
Office of Management and Budget (the 1999 Plan):
For 1999, the program has established a
performance goal that 50% of biosolids will be
beneficially reused. Efforts in this area will
lead to a reduction in pollutant discharges by
effectively managing the residuals of the
wastewater treatment process and ensuring
that a valuable resource is used effectively.
Sewage sludge is removed from wastewater during
treatment prior to discharge by the POTW.
Reductions in point source pollution occur when
wastewater is treated, not when biosolids are used or
disposed. Therefore, although the amount or quality
of the sludge removed from the wastewater reduces
point source pollution, the manner of final disposal of
the biosolids does not affect the quality of the water
discharged from the pipe. In fact, if biosolids land
application is not done in accordance with Part 503,
the result can be runoff of biosolids into surface
waters. In that case, point source pollution is simply
exchanged for nonpoint source pollution.23
Additionally, measuring the number of POTWs that
are beneficially reusing all or part of their biosolids is
only a surrogate measure of the percent of biosolids
beneficially reused. Neither the percentage of
biosolids beneficially reused, nor the number of
POTWs beneficially reusing biosolids, provides
indications of whether point source pollution is
decreasing. The fact that EPA has not adequately
defined the universe of biosolids to resolve issues of
whether Regions should only count biosolids reported
in annual reports or estimate biosolids production and
use in the Region, including the amount landfilled, as
well as septage, only serves to compound the
~JThe term nonpoint source pollution refers to pollution attributed to
runoff and whose original source cannot be determined. If misapplied
biosolids run off the land and into water, this would be an instance of
nonpoint source pollution.
27
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
difficulty in establishing the percentage of biosolids
beneficially reused.
Finally, EPA has no control over the annual
performance goal it selected for the biosolids
program. Part 503 explicitly states, "[t]his part does
not require the selection of a sewage sludge use or
disposal practice. The determination of the manner in
which sewage sludge is used or disposed is a local
determination." Factors that may affect the selection
of a use or disposal option include transportation
costs, landfill tipping fees compared to the cost of
land application, land application conditions (including
weather and soil characteristics), the availability of
land application sites and incineration facilities, as
well as state biosolids regulations, county ordinances
and bans. Therefore, changes in biosolids program
efforts will not necessarily be reflected by any change
(positive or negative) in the percentage of biosolids
land applied.
Goals for the biosolids program that would encourage
a more holistic view of wastewater management and
provide greater feedback for the functioning of the
NPDES and pretreatment programs could involve
information regarding the percentage of sludge that is
EQ for metals (prior to any re-mixing) or the quantity
of metals removed from wastewater. These
measures would more directly measure reductions in
point source pollution and more accurately
characterize possible nonpoint source pollution from
noncompliance with Part 503 management practices.
Cleaner sludge should not result in more polluted
effluent, since NPDES permit limits should continue to
ensure the quality of the effluent is maintained.
Although the 50% reuse goal does not directly
measure point source pollution reduction and EPA
does not have control over its achievement, the goal
could have value to EPA as a measure of pollution
prevention. For example, EPA's goal of reducing the
volume of municipal solid waste being landfilled is a
pollution prevention measure. The volume of sewage
28 Report No.2000-P-10
-------
Resource Needs
Should Be Identified
The Midyear Progress
Report For Biosolids
Has Limitations
sludge recycled instead of landfilled could assist in
measuring EPA's progress toward pollution
prevention.
Resources needed to accomplish the 50% beneficial
reuse goal are not described in the 1999 Plan. The
Plan states that the NPDES program includes
NPDES permits, the pre-treatment program for non-
domestic wastewater dischargers into municipal
sanitary sewers, and biosolids management controls.
In January 1999, an OW official explained that:
[O]ur decision to reinvest in biosolids was
relatively recent - about a year and a half....
[W]e decided to reinvest in biosolids after the
FY99 budget had gone forward, so no
resources were expressly included in the 99
budget for biosolids. We received money from
the [Assistant Administrator] in 1998 to get
underway and we built the program around
that money....
OW Headquarters requires EPA regions to report the
percentage of biosolids land applied. Midyear (April
1999) regional reports ranged from 33% in Region 5
to 80% in Region 7. The arithmetic average of all 10
regions indicates that 53% of biosolids are
beneficially reused nationwide. But interpretation of
these figures must recognize that:
(1) the regions do not have accurate measures of
biosolids land application or disposal options. For
example, no regional estimates include septage, even
though the Part 503 definition of domestic sewage
sludge includes domestic septage; and
(2) given the differences among regions in the
number of POTWs and total biosolids generated, an
arithmetic average of regional percentages is not an
accurate picture of the national percentage of land
applied biosolids.
29
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Biosolids Data
Verification
Is Not Practical
Recommendations
Biosolids data verification is hampered by the lack of
a central location for biosolids data. While OWs
Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS,
described on page 7 of this report) can capture
biosolids production, use and disposal information,
Chapter 2 explained that at present BDMS is not
widely used, but EPA is promoting the database
although its use is not required. According to OW,
BDMS could be used to track enforcement data, but
currently is not used for that purpose. The
relationship between BDMS and PCS has not been
clarified, and PCS modernization is expected to take
years. So EPA may be years away from having a
single automated repository for biosolids production,
use and disposal, and enforcement data. It is unlikely
that EPA wijl be able to store or verify data on the
amount of biosolids produced, and biosolids use and
disposal practices, for over 16,000 POTWs (or even
just the 3,660 reporters) without an automated
information system.
If EPA continues to measure the current goal of
beneficial reuse of biosolids, we recommend that the
Assistant Administrator for Water:
3-1 Define "beneficial reuse;"
3-2 Provide guidance to the regions concerning
what data should be collected and where
collected data should reside.
Agency Response
OIG Evaluation
3-3 Establish procedures to verify collected data.
OW will provide additional guidance to the Regions
and States as to what "beneficial use" means. By
April 2000, OW will provide additional guidance to the
Regions and States as to how data is to be collected,
assessed, and reported to Headquarters.
The proposed corrective actions will address
recommendations 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 and no further
action is required.
30
Report No. 2000-P-lO
-------
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
Water:
Agency Response
OIG Evaluation
Agency Response
3-4 Allocate the resources necessary to determine
progress toward the established goal.
OWs budget does not specifically identify resources
for biosolids. However, the Office of Science and
Technology continues its regulation development
activities, and OW will continue to support biosotids
with approximately two FTEs, minimal contract and
grant funds, and with Congressional earmark funds.
The Agency's response is insufficient. GPRA
requires that EPA specify what goals it will
accomplish and how the goals will be accomplished.
To establish a goal of 50% beneficial use, and not to
identify the resources needed to accomplish the goal,
does not reflect compliance with GPRA. As long as it
has a GPRA goal, OW should identify needed
resources.
If OW elects to review and redefine goals for the
biosolids program, we recommend that the Assistant
Administrator for Water:
3-5 Select annual performance goals and
indicators for the biosolids program that reflect
the goal of reducing point source or nonpoint
source pollution, such as percentage of EQ
sludge, adoption of best management
practices, or the quantity of metals removed
from wastewater or compliance rates with Part
503 management practices.
3-6 Identify the actions and investments needed to
accomplish the revised goals.
For at least the next year or two, OW will continue to
use beneficial use of biosolids as a goal and measure
under GPRA. OW will initiate discussions with
Regional offices and States to see if there is a better
31
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
OIG Evaluation
measure for assessing the success of the biosolids
program. The first opportunity to do this will be the
next annual meeting for Regional and State biosolids
coordinators scheduled for June 26-29, 2000.
As noted under Recommendation 3-4, GPRA requires
that along with goals, OW should identify the
resources needed to achieve its goals, and the data
to be collected to measure progress. OW expressed
concern "that there is considerable advance work
needed to develop and implement a new
performance measure." Providing a date by which
OW expects to complete its assessment of whether to
amend its biosolids performance goal will address this
recommendation.
32
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
APPENDIX A
Agency Response to the Draft Report
February 24, 2000
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report on Biosolids Management and Enforcement
(No. 99P-000301)
FROM: J. Charles Fox /s/
Assistant Administrator
TO: Michael Simmons
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Internal Audits
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report on biosolids
management and enforcement. We appreciate your staffs effort to give us a careful
review of the topic. I will first present some general observations and then I will address
your specific recommendations.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• OW was responsible for developing and issuing 40 CFR Part 503 as it exists
today, and it has activities underway to develop necessary modifications to that
rule. OW will continue to work with EPA Regions and States to implement
biosolids requirements, including through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits where appropriate. As you are aware, 40
CFR Part 503 was designed to be self-implementing, meaning that those subject
to the rule are required to comply whether or not a permit is issued.
• OECA's letter, which is attached (Attachment 1), addresses the area of
determining the level of compliance.
-33-
ReportNo.2000-P-10
-------
A program for regulation, compliance oversight, and enforcement of biosolids
use and disposal exists in every State. The regulations of most States are
equivalent to, or more restrictive than, 40 CFR Part 503. Even though EPA has
delegated the biosolids program to only three States, programs are in place in
the non-delegated States that provide additional oversight.
In addition to developing required modifications to 40 CFR Part 503, OWs
primary activity related to biosolids has beem promoting more effective biosolids
management and encouraging beneficial use consistent with the Agency's Policy
on Municipal Sludge Management issued in 1984 and with section 405(g)(1) of
the Clean Water Act. For this reason, OW proposed an annual performance
measure related to beneficial use of biosolids and developed the Biosolids Data
Management System (BDMS) to help track use and disposal practices,
especially beneficial use. The annual performance measure issue is discussed
further below and in Attachment No. 2.
To complement our internal activities to promote more effective biosolids
management, the Office of Wastewater Management is also working
closely with the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the Association
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) through the National Biosolids
Partnership (NBP). The primary focus of this voluntary alliance is to develop
a biosolids environmental management systems (EMS) program and facilitate the
the adoption of EMSs by publicly owned treatment works for their biosolids
activities.
Environmental management systems were first adopted by private industry, but
are now being used more widely by public organizations. Consistent with EPA's
overall policy on EMSs, my office is managing projects to encourage public
agencies to adopt EMSs, in addition to our work with the NBP. EMSs provide
organizations with a structured process and procedures for assessing the full
range of environmental impacts of their operations, both regulated and
unregulated, and for reducing those impacts over time. In addition, they can
enable organizations to identify more efficient ways to reduce environmental
impacts through pollution prevention. Finally, adoption of an EMS, especially by
public entities, requires an organization to communicate with local stakeholders
and address issues raised by these stakeholders that are not necessarily
regulated, like odor and noise.
-34-
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
• Adoption of EMSs will support EPA's biosolids program goals by:
1) helping organizations implement biosolids programs that comply with
our Part 503 regulations and any other State requirements;
/
2) encouraging adoption of best management practices by these
organizations that support beneficial reuse and protection of overall water
quality; and
3) facilitating better communications with local stakeholders and addressing
issues they are concerned about.
RESPONSE TO PIG RECOMMENDATIONS:
The report recommends that the Assistant Administrator for Water "work with the
regions and states to develop and implement measures to determine compliance
with Part 503, instruct regions to maintain, or ensure that states maintain,
Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate [CPLR] data, and encourage delegation of the
biosolids program."
Response:
• OECA's response addresses issues relating to the level of compliance
with 40 CFR Part 503.
• Although the regulations and associated guidance documents imply that
the permitting authority (i.e. the appropriate EPA Regional Office or
authorized State agency) is a repository for data on the cumulative loads
of pollutants applied to specific land parcels since February 19,1993, the
regulations do not actually require CPLR data to be reported until 90
percent of the maximum cumulative limit of any one pollutant has been
reached. It should be noted that most of the biosolids that are land
applied are of such quality that CPLR tracking is not necessary.
• OWs Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) has supported the
development of the BDMS which will enable wastewater utilities, States,
Regions, and others to store and monitor biosolids data including site-
specific CPLR information.
• OW does hot expect to devote significant effort to encouraging the
Regions to delegate the biosolids program to the States. At the present
time, there is little incentive for the States to seek delegation, and some
States see impediments to delegation, e.g. the effect of State self-audit
-35- Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
statutes, and issues related to the Endangered Species Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act. At the present time, we feel that OWs
efforts would be better spent in improving communications between the
States and Regions, documenting State efforts devoted to the regulation
and oversight of biosotids use and disposal practices, and working with
State and local agencies to increase the use of environmental
management systems.
The report recommends that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance: (1) "[i]mplement GAO's 1990 recommendation to establish
an effective enforcement program" and (2) "[w]ork with the septage industry and
state and local governments so that septage haulers who violate Part 503 receive
appropriate penalties, and publicize this information for its deterrent effect."
Response:
• Please see OECA's specific comments in Attachment No. 1.
The report discusses the annual performance measure related to beneficial use of
biosolids established pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), points out a number of deficiencies in the manner in which the goal was
established, and states that it "does not provide a meaningful picture of the national
state of biosolids use and disposal practices, and is not a useful decision making
tool for the biosolids program." The report suggests that there might be better
measures available to address "reductions in point source pollution and more
accurately characterize possible nonpoint source pollution from non compliance with
Part 503 management practices." The report concludes:
If EPA continues to measure the current goal of beneficial use of
• biosolids, we recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
define "beneficial reuse," provide guidance to the regions concerning what
data should be collected and where collected data should reside,
establish procedures to verify collected data, allocate resources
necessary to determine progress toward the established goal, [and]
If OW elects to review and redefine goals for the biosolids program, we
recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: select annual
performance goals and indicators for the biosolids program that reflect the
goal of reducing point source or nonpoint source pollution, such as
percentage of EQ sludge, adoption of best management practices, or the
quantity of metals removed from wastewater or compliance rates with Part
503 management practices [and] identify the actions and investments
needed to accomplish the revised goals.
-36- Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Response:
A discussion as to why and how this measure was established under Goal
2 rather than Goal 4 which addresses pollution prevention is included in
Attachment No. 2.
For at least the next year or two, OW will continue to use beneficial use of
biosolids as a goal and measure under GPRA. We will initiate
discussions with our Regional offices and States to see if there is a better
measure for assessing the success of our biosolids program. The first
opportunity for doing this will be the next annual meeting for Regional and
State biosolids coordinators scheduled for June 26-29, 2000, in
Cincinnati. I hope you can appreciate that there is considerable advance
work needed to develop and implement a new performance measure. In
the interim, we will provide additional guidance to the Regions and States
as to what we mean by beneficial use in this context and on how data is to
be collected, assessed, and reported to Headquarters. We have already
drafted such guidance and plan to include it in the next annual program
guidance which will be circulated for comment soon with the final version
to follow in April 2000.
OWM has devoted considerable resources to development of the BDMS
and is encouraging Regions, States and others to use that system for
collection, storage, and analysis of biosolids information. We have also
encouraged OECA to incorporate BDMS into the Modernized Permits
Compliance System. Many States and Regions have begun to use
BDMS, and some Regions are encouraging POTWs and others to use
the system as the means of providing the Part 503 annual report for 1999
that is due in February 2000 or are providing a reporting form that will
make Regional entry of data into BDMS much easier. OWM will continue
to support BDMS to the extent resources allow. If States, Regions, and
wastewater utilities use the BDMS or a compatible system, we will be in a
position to determine current use and disposal practices, the amount of
biosolids being beneficially used, biosolids quality (e.g. the amount
meeting Table 3 of the regulations), and the status of compliance with the
Part 503 rule.
OWs budget does not specifically identify resources for biosolids.
However, the Office of Science and Technology continues its regulation
development activities, and OWM has been able to, and will continue to,
support a biosolids program with approximately two FTEs, with minimal
discretionary contract and grant funds, and with Congressional earmark
funds. John Walker of OWM leads a cross-office Biosolids Program
-37- Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Implementation Team (BPIT) to coordinate and facilitate the Agency's
limited biosolids resources.
I have also included, in Attachment 2, some suggested editorial changes to the
report.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. Should you
wish to discuss them with me, please give me a call. Your staff may also wish to talk
directly with Michael B. Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management (260-5850),
or John Walker of the Municipal Technology Branch, Municipal Support Division
(260-7283). For any questions related to our work with the NBP on its EMS program or
other EMS related issues, please contact Jim Home (260-5802).
Attachments
cc: Sylvia Lowrance, OECA
Eric Shaeffer, ORE/OECA
Michael Stahl, OC/OECA
Leo D'Amico, OCEFT/OECA
Sue Priftis, OC/OECA
Beth Cavalier, ORE/OECA
Kevin Guarino, OCEFT/OECA
Greg Marion, ARMSS/OECA
Chuck Sutfin, PD/OWM/OW
Geoff Grubbs, OW/OST
Alan Rubin, OW/OST
Jim Home, OWM
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Biosolids Coordinators, Regions 1-X
-38-
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
Attachment No. 1
I
**
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 1 4 1999
OFFCEOF
ENFORCEMENTAND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
OECA's Response to Draft IG Report on Biosolids
Sylvia K. Lowrancq
Principal Deputy (
Office of Enfoi
ator,
md Compliance Assurance
Jonathan C. Fox
Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water
Attached you will find OECA's response to the Biosolids Management and
Enforcement Draft Audit Report (No. 99P-000301). The report was reviewed by OECA staff
and managers in our civil and criminal enforcement programs, and by our compliance
assurance program. We look forward to receiving a copy of the consolidated Agency response
to this audit report.
If you have any questions about OECA's response or if you need additional
information, please contact Greg Marion, OECA's IG/GAO Liaison. Greg can be reached at
564-2446.
Attachments
cc: Eric Schaeffer, Director, ORE
Michael Stahl, Acting Director, OC
Leo D'Amico, Acting Director, OCEFT
Sue Priftis, OC
Beth Cavalier, ORE
Kevin Guarino, OCEFT
Greg Marion, ARMSS
PMnM MID SOf/Cara* Irk on piax
tenant * (MM S0%
-------
OECA Response to Draft IG's Report on Biosolids
Draft Audit Report No. 99P-000301
1. OECA Comments on Draft Findings
The draft IG's report characterizes OECA's position on biosolids enforcement resources as
follows: "OECA Headquarters does not commit any resources to biosolids enforcement, a decision
referred to as 'disinvestment.' OECA explains that there are more regulated communities than can be
adequately overseen with its available resources. Rather than spread its limited resources so broadly
that only token efforts can be made in several areas, OECA decided to concentrate its efforts in a few
areas other than biosolids, where it feels it can make a large impact. OECA considers biosolids to be
relatively low risk, and notes that biosolids are not mentioned in OW's Clean Water Action Plan and
are not a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) priority." Draft IG report at page 14.
Although the cited quotation is basically correct, OECA wishes to amplify the first quoted
sentence above ("OECA Headquarters does not commit any resources to biosolids enforcement, a
decision referred to as 'disinvestment.'"). It is true that no OECA resources are specifically identified
for biosolids enforcement. Given the current budget climate and the reductions that have been
sustained in the enforcement program, OECA chooses to devote resources to those areas that represent
a higher risk. The attached charts demonstrate the vast size of the regulated universe as compared to
the available resources.
However, OECA certainly recognizes that biosolids are pan of the core NPDES program and
has responded to limited requests for Headquarters assistance from the Regions on biosolids issues and
cases (often administrative). The Regions and states may focus on biosolids as part of the base
program as they determine is appropriate. OECA has left biosolids enforcement to be determined on a
Region by Region basis without an OECA national strategy for me reasons correctly stated above by
the draft IG's report.
The disposal and use of biosolids is subject to permits issued under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System, 33 U.S.C.§ 1342. Regulations pertaining to biosolids disposal are found
at 40 CFR part 503. Biosolids disposal cases are enforced criminally pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
§1319(c)(l)(A) and (c)(2XA). The criminal provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
provide criminal sanctions for the negligent or knowing violation of 33 U.S.C. §1345, relating to the
disposal or use of sewage sludge and 3 3 U.S.C. §1342, relating to violations of National Discharge
Elimination System permits.
OECA's Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensic and Training, Criminal Investigation
Division, will review, on a case by case basis, any information relating to violations of laws criminally
enforced by the Agency. All allegations of violations of biosolids disposal regulations, as well as any
other criminal provision enforced by the Agency will be evaluated using the OCEFT policy
memorandum entitled "The Exercise of Investigative Discretion." The prior regulatory history of a
potential subject will also be considered. Another factor in determining OCEFT's involvement in a
biosolids disposal case would be the potential for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act in situations where the chemical composition of a biosolid would meet the regulatory definition of a
RCRA hazardous waste.
All referrals by the Office of Water and the EPA Regional Offices, relating to alleged violations
-------
of the program, will be reviewed by our Area Offices for potential criminal enforcement.
2. OECA Response to Draft IG Recommendations
The draft IG's report (at page 16) recommends that OECA (1) publish national criteria for biosolids
significant non-compliance, (2) publish national biosolids criteria for timely and appropriate
enforcement, (3) provide effective oversight of EPA Regional and State biosolids enforcement efforts,
and (4) "work with the septage industry and state and local governments so that septage haulers who
violate Part 503 receive appropriate penalties, and publicize this information for its deterrent effect."
OECA does not dispute the value of the above recommendations. However, OECA feels
compelled to allocate resources on the basis of relative risk, which drives the establishment of
enforcement priorities under the Clean Water Act. As explained during the IG interviews with OECA
personnel, enforcement priorities under the Clean Water Act are set out in the FY 2000/2001 OECA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Guidance (MOA Guidance) and in the Clean Water Action Plan.
The priorities are developed on the basis of risk in consultation widi the Regions. The current Clean
Water Act enforcement priorities in the MOA Guidance relate to "wet weather areas: the Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy, the Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Enforcement Management System,
the National Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Sector Strategy (including the CAFO
Implementation Plan), and Storm Water regulations." These Clean Water Act enforcement priorities
address areas posing greater environmental risk than biosolids.
The draft IG report itself acknowledges that resource investments are based on priorities. The
executive summary of the draft report states that "We recognize diat there may be higher priority needs
for OW and OECA resources." OECA has no additional staff resources for FY 2000 and indeed will
likely be unable to replace employees who leave. In addition, our program faces significant cuts in
contract resources. OECA believes it would be unwise to divert scarce resources from the higher risk
priorities identified'in the Clean Water Action Plan to carry out all the specific recommendations of the
IG with respect to biosolids.
However, OECA will continue to respond to limited Regional requests for assistance in
biosolids enforcement as part of the core program. In addition, OECA's Office of Compliance is .
currently developing detailed audit protocols for the NPDES program. These protocols will cover the
biosolids program in detail, and may be used by EPA Regional and state personnel, as well as the
regulated community to assist them in determining compliance with the biosolids regulations. OECA
expects to complete these audit protocols by spring of 2000.
OECA's compliance assistance center, the Local Government Environmental Assistance
Network (www.lgean.org) is a resource available to all local governments to assist them with
compliance with the biosolids regulations, as well as other regulations. OECA has made this resource
available to the Office of Water to assist them in their outreach efforts.
-------
f".
o
I
CD
-j
1
I
O)
— w.
0)
1
O
8
3
o.
o*
o
o
in
I
i.
a
o
O
CD
05
T3
<0
Li
52
w o>
§£
M
P
i£
E »
'« S
Vj
§ I
£ i
Is
ai
o
§
RS
(O Q.
I I
£ £
-p J3
£ 05
E -o
3!
— tn
O 111
z fr
-------
I
o
IN
CNJ
**
os
p eg
CN CD
CM CO
CO
II
O
S
.1
CO
CO
s
i
CO
Q.
8
0)
II
(A
O
i
O
O
CO
TJ
C
CO
§
8
a>
o
§
in
-------
Attachment No. 2
OW's Comments and Suggestions for Editorial Changes to
the OIG Report on Biosolids Management & Enforcement
1. The report needs to include an explanation as to how and why the biosolids
measure was included under Goal 2 where it doesn't seem to fit. We offer the
following explanation for your consideration. When goals and measures for use
under the Strategic Plan developed in response to the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) were first being developed, OW proposed a goal/measure
related to beneficial use of biosolids because it would support one of OW/OWM's
significant activities, and it would serve to reinforce the Agency's Policy on Municipal
Sludge Management published in the Federal Register on June 12, 1984. Since the
goal/measure related to beneficial use of biosolids seemed to more directly support
the pollution reduction objectives of Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan, it was originally
placed under that Goal. Later on, the biosolids goal/measure was moved to Goal 2
to avoid mingling budgets of two offices (OW & OSWER) under one goal.
2. Most Regions know what data they should collect under the 503 reporting process.
Some provide specific guidance and or forms/formats to POTWs and others are
required to report. For the 1999 report, due on February 19, 2000, some regions
are strongly suggesting the use of BDMS for tracking and reporting or providing a
reporting form that will make entry of data into BDMS much easier. BDMS has been
designed to: (a) accommodate direct data entry by POTWs, other generators, and
land appliers, (b) allow tracking of the quality/quantity of biosolids on a field-by-field
basis, (c) allow easy analysis of the data, (d) permit data and reports to be
submitted to the permitting agency (State or Region) electronically. We will continue
to encourage our Regional Offices, the States, and the regulated community to use
the BDMS and, to the extent resources allow, will support its upkeep and
maintenance until it can be incorporated into GEMS, the successor to the present
PCS.
3. Pagei:
1. First paragraph: First sentence should be revised as follows: Domestic a
Sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid, or liquid by-product generated during the
treatment of wastowater domestic sewage at municipal wastewater trcatmont
pterrts- in a treatment works. The suggested change is more in line with the
regulations. The important point is that the regulations apply to privately owned
as well as publicly owned treatment facilities treating domestic sewage.
2. First paragraph: If you accept the suggested change to the first sentence, you
can delete second sentence.
-44-
ReportNo.2000-P-lO
-------
3. First paragraph: Revise the 6th sentence as follows: EPA encourages tend
application beneficial use of biosolids, and land application is one of the most
common forms of beneficial use. rathof-than landfilling or incineration, and if
applied-properly, biosolids help condition the soil and provide a beneficial use of
waste.
4. First paragraph: Revise the 7th sentence as follows: Land application means
spraying or spreading the material on the surface of the land, injecting it below
the surface, or incorporating it into the soil so that the sewage sludge can either
condition the soil or fertilize crops or vegetation grown in the soil. So/7
conditioning or fertilization of crops/vegetation is an essential element of land
application.
5. Delete the entire 1st paragraph in the section entitled "Results in Brief." The
second sentence of this paragraph is particularly troublesome in that it might give
the uninformed reader the impression that land application practices in
accordance with the regulations are not protective of human health and the
environment The real issue, as you correctly state in the following paragraph
and in the first paragraph on Page 5 is that EPA and State regulatory agencies
cannot provide documentation to determine compliance levels with the Part 503
requirements.
4. Page ii:
1. Paragraph .that continues from previous page: Add the following sentence to the
end of the paragraph: OECA will, however, support the biosolids
efforts/initiatives of the Regional offices and will evaluate all referrals it receives
for potential criminal enforcement.
5. Page 1:
1. 1st paragraph in Background section: The first sentence or two must be
modified. As currently written, it implies that discharge permits were first
required by the 1977 Amendments. Actually, NPDES permits were required by
the 1972 Act. You might want to delete the first sentence entirely and explain in
a footnote that the CWA refers to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended in 1972, 1977, etc.
2. 2nd paragraph in Background section: Revise first sentence or two to convey the
correct idea that sewage sludge results from the treatment of domestic sewage
in any treatment work, whether publicly or privately owned.
-45-
Report No. 2000-P-IO
-------
3. 3rd paragraph in Background section: Total production of biosolids is
approximately 7.5 million dry metric tons/year. It is incorrect to imply that all of it
originates from POTWs. Also, the official policy of EPA is to encourage
"beneficial use," not land application." (See 1984 Policy Statement.)
6. Page 2:
1. 1st paragraph: The "definition" of land application provided is incomplete. Revise
as follows:"... into the soil so that the sewage sludge can either condition the
soil or fertilize crops or vegetation grown in the soil."
2. 2nd paragraph: Revise first sentence as follows:"... quality of the biosolids and
the crops grown on or in the soil."
3. 3rd paragraph: Record-keeping requirements are not limited to POTWs as the 2nd
sentence implies.
7. Page 5:
1. 1st paragraph: You need to modify the paragraph slightly because POTWs are
not the only facilities required to report to the permitting agency. Significant
generators and land appliers must also report.
2. 1st paragraph: Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: OECA
will, however, support the biosolids efforts/initiatives of the Regional offices and
will evaluate all referrals it receives for potential criminal enforcement.
8. Page 6:
1. Please revise the chart to show that Region 2 reviewed 277 reports and that
Region 8 reviewed 273 reports.
9. Page 7:
1.
2nd full paragraph: It's true that most land appliers of sewage sludge are not
required to submit reports to the permitting authority, but all are required to
maintain records and have the records available virtually on demand.
10. Pages 7 & 8:
1. We recommend you add some words to emphasize that some POTWs (e.g.
lagoons and small package plants) do not produce sludge/biosolids on a regular
basis and that there are facilities other than POTWs subject to the regulations.
-46-
ReportNo. 2000-P-lO
-------
11. Page 10:
1. 1st paragraph: We suggest you revise the last sentence to read that septage
haulers are required to keep records even though they may not need to submit
reports to the permitting authority.
12. Page 15:
1. First paragraph: You might want to note that Congress has provided another
$900,000 for the National Biosolids Partnership in FY 2000.
-47-
Report No. 2000-P-10
-------
APPENDIX B
Distribution
Office of the Inspector General
Inspector General
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Divisional Inspectors General
EPA Headquarters Offices
Agency Followup Official (2710)
Agency Followup Coordinator (2724)
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education and Public Affairs (1701)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301)
Associate General Counsel, Water Law Office (2355)
Audit Liaisons:
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Water
EPA Regional Offices
Regional Administrators
Regional Audit Liaisons
Biosolids Coordinators
-48-
ReportNo. 2000-P-IO
------- |