y,6D SU
\
*£ PROlfe
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
EPA Needs to Reinforce Its
National Pretreatment Program
Report No. 2004-P-00030
Date: September 28, 2004

-------
Report Contributors:
Ira Brass
Linda Fuller
Anthony Chirigotis
Chad Kincheloe
Frank Pelczarski
Elizabeth Grossman
James Haller
David Cofer
Renee McGhee-Lenart
Abbreviations

AMSA
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
OIG
Office of Inspector General
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PCS
Permit Compliance System
PER
Permitting for Environmental Results
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
TRI
Toxics Release Inventory
Cover Photo: Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, Boston, Massachusetts
Photo provided by Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

-------

|	1	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o vxT/y S	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
\ .0-
^ pro"^
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 28, 2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:	EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program
Report No. 2004-P-00030
FROM:	Dan Engelberg /s/
Director, Water Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
TO:	Benjamin Grumbles
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
This is our final report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This evaluation report contains
findings that describe problems found by the OIG and corrective actions to address these
problems recommended by the OIG. This evaluation report represents the opinion of the OIG
and the findings contained in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this evaluation report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days of the date of this report. You should include a corrective actions
plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further
release of this report to the public. For your convenience, this report will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig. In addition to providing a written copy of your response, please e-mail
an electronic version to Fuller.Linda@epa.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-
0830 or Linda Fuller at (617) 918-1485.

-------

-------
Executive Summary
Purpose
Preventing industrial pollutants from interfering with wastewater treatment
facility operations or passing through facilities untreated into water bodies are
functions of EPA's pretreatment program. It is a core part of the Clean Water
Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The
Agency considers the pretreatment program successful in reducing discharges of
harmful pollutants, and this has resulted in less resources and attention being
directed toward this program in recent years. However, toxic pollutants are still
being transferred to sewage treatment plants, and the impact to human health and
the environment of some of these pollutants may still not be known.
Our objectives were to answer the following:
How effectively have the pretreatment regulations controlled industrial user
discharges?
What are the differences in how publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
with and without approved pretreatment programs oversee their industrial
users and do these differences affect protection of the plant and receiving
waters?
How well is EPA maintaining its program gains and addressing future needs
and do EPA's pretreatment program measures show the program's progress?
Results in Brief
The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation's sewer systems that
characterized the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured,
according to EPA published data compiled from information provided by
industrial facilities. Since the middle of the 1990s, there has been little change in
the volume of a broad list of toxic pollutants transferred to POTWs or in the index
of risk associated with these pollutants. As a result, the performance of EPA's
pretreatment program, which is responsible for controlling these discharges, is
threatened and progress toward achieving the Congress' Clean Water Act goal of
eliminating toxic discharges that can harm water quality has stalled. The
curtailing of the early gains may be explained in part by two factors: (1)
dischargers that developed systems in response to EPA's initial program
requirements have not enhanced their pretreatment systems in recent years, and
(2) the rate at which EPA has been issuing effluent guidelines dramatically
declined since 1990.
i

-------
Our review of 22 POTWs suggests that the pretreatment program should be
extended to at least some of the POTWs without approved programs because,
they reported having encountered more operational problems and were more
likely to be discharging to an impaired water than POTWs with approved
programs. Specifically, the proportion of POTWs with approved pretreatment
programs that experienced a pass through/interference event (17 percent) was less
than half the proportion of POTWs without approved programs (40 percent). The
difference between the proportion of POTWs with approved programs that
discharged to an impaired water (25 percent) was even smaller compared to the
proportion of POTWs without approved programs that discharged to an impaired
water (60 percent). One possible explanation is that EPA Regions and State
agencies that are supposed to act as control authorities for POTWs without
approved programs do not have standards for overseeing industrial users
discharging to these POTWs. Although EPA was working on necessary guidance
for these Regions and States, the project was put on hold due to other priorities.
Without more visible leadership from Headquarters, improved programmatic
information, and the adoption of results-based performance measures, EPA's
pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it made in its early years. The
leveling off of those early gains, coinciding with EPA's diminishing program
emphasis, paints a picture of a program at risk. Headquarters has delayed
finalizing guides and regulations intended to update the pretreatment program by
not allocating sufficient resources or requesting budget increases for additional
pretreatment resources. Additionally, results-based performance measures on
pretreatment program activities have not been developed partially due to the lack
of adequate, accessible data. As a result, POTWs' pretreatment programs may
not be as effective in protecting environmental quality or worker health and safety
as they could be, and EPA cannot assess the effectiveness of its pretreatment
program.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water take stock of
the pretreatment program by determining a meaningful performance measure that
entails continued improvement, establishing a mechanism to achieve that goal,
and, lastly, acquiring additional resources to implement necessary programmatic
improvements. Specifically, staff should be directed to finalize necessary
guidance, set oversight standards for Regions and States designated as control
authorities, encourage the incorporation of pretreatment oversight responsibilities
in the NPDES permits of POTWs without approved programs as circumstances
allow, and promote training opportunities. The Acting Assistant Administrator
should direct staff to evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to
enable it to make further reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk. The
additional funding should be requested in the next funding cycle.
ii

-------
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
In an August 30, 2004 response to our draft report, the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Water acknowledged our findings that environmental benefits
are derived from the POTWs' implementation of the pretreatment program. The
Acting Assistant Administrator stated that the Office of Water was in the process
of conducting the most comprehensive assessment of the NPDES Program in its
30-year history (Permitting for Environmental Results, or PER Strategy) and that
one component of its resulting strategy would help to address several of our
recommendations. We have summarized the Agency's response and our
comments at the end of each chapter. The Acting Assistant Administrator's
memorandum is attached as Appendix G. A clarification attachment provided by
the Agency is on file at the Office of Inspector General. An exit conference was
held on September 2, 2004.
The Office of Water's efforts to assess and improve its NPDES program as part of
its PER Strategy are commendable. Since action for carrying out several of our
recommendations is dependent on completion of this strategy, we are revising our
recommendations to provide milestone dates for action and quarterly progress
reports for actions not completed within 90 days of report issuance. We have also
made other revisions as appropriate based on the Agency's clarification
document.

-------
iv

-------
	Table of Contents	
Executive Summary	 i
Chapters
1	Introduction	 1
2	Pretreatment Program Gains Have Leveled Off	 5
3	More POTWs Need to Adopt National
Pretreatment Programs 	 11
4	Pretreatment Program Needs Improved Direction,
Data, and Performance Measurements	 21
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology 	 29
B Basic Pretreatment Program Elements 	 33
C Oversight of Industrial Users by POTWs
Without Approved EPA Pretreatment Programs	 35
D	Examples of Enforcement Efforts		37
E	Gaps in Industrial User Oversight		39
F	POTW Industrial Pollutant Trends		41
G	Agency Response 	43
H	Distribution 	47
v

-------

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The focus of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clean water program is
reducing pollutant loadings. There are hundreds of thousands of industrial users
in the United States, and many may discharge toxic pollutants to wastewater
facilities. Preventing industrial pollutants from interfering with wastewater
treatment facility operations or passing through facilities untreated to water
bodies are functions of EPA's National Pretreatment Program, a core part of the
Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
One of the 2003 Office of Water priorities is to "conserve the gains of the last
30 years." The Agency considers the pretreatment program successful in
reducing discharges of harmful pollutants to wastewater facilities and their
receiving waters. This success has resulted in less resources and attention
directed toward this program in recent years, even though toxic pollutants are still
being transferred to sewage treatment plants.
Our objectives were to answer the following:
How effectively have the pretreatment regulations controlled industrial user
discharges?
What are the differences in how publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
with and without approved pretreatment programs oversee their industrial
users and do these differences affect protection of the plant and receiving
waters?
How well is EPA maintaining its program gains and addressing future needs
and do EPA's pretreatment program measures show the program's progress?
Background
Following scenes of dying fish and burning rivers in the 1950s and 1960s,
Congress in 1972 passed the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the integrity
of the nation's waters. EPA established the NPDES program to achieve these
goals. The program regulates facilities such as POTWs, which discharge directly
to surface waters.
1

-------
In addition to receiving wastewater from homes, POTWs may also receive
industrial waste from manufacturing sources. Because industrial waste can
disrupt a POTW's operations ("interference") or pollute the POTW's receiving
water and cause an NPDES
violation ("pass through"), the
pretreatment program was
established as a component of the
NPDES program to control these
discharges. The general
pretreatment regulation
promulgated on June 26, 1978,
required certain POTWs to
develop pretreatment programs to
control the introduction of
industrial wastes into POTWs. These program requirements are included in the
POTWs NPDES permit. The National Pretreatment Program objectives are in
Figure 1(A).
The pretreatment program is implemented through a partnership of EPA, State
agencies, and POTWs. POTWs usually have the prime responsibility for
implementing and enforcing the program, and are known as "control authorities."
EPA Regions or a State agency authorized to administer pretreatment programs
approve a POTW's pretreatment program are known as "approval authorities."
Currently, there are approximately 1,500 approved pretreatment programs. EPA
Regions or State agencies may also act as control authorities if POTWs are
unauthorized or the agency deems it more efficient to administer the program.
Regions and States include pretreatment program requirements as part of a
POTWs NPDES permit; these permits are the mechanism used to regulate
POTW discharges to surface waters.
Control authorities must implement their program in accordance with
pretreatment regulations. An approved pretreatment program includes the
following basic program elements:
Legal authority.
Procedures for maintaining and updating an inventory, issuing permits, and
conducting inspections and sampling.
Developing and updating local limits.
• Developing and implementing an Enforcement Response Plan.
Submitting a list of significant industrial users (usually as part of the annual
pretreatment report.
Control authorities should also ensure that their industrial users are following
appropriate discharge standards, as noted in Table 1.1:
National Pretreatment Program Objectives
•	Prevent interference with POTW operations
•	Prevent the pass through of pollutants
•	Improve biosolids recycling and reuse
opportunities
Figure 1(A)
2

-------
Table 1.1: Discharge Standards
Pretreatment Standard
Applicable Industrial User
Prohibited Discharge Standard:
Prohibit the discharge of substances that
could cause:
•	fire or explosions,
•	corrosive structural damage,
•	obstruction of flow,
•	toxic vapors, or
•	other harmful effects.
All industrial users subject or not to
any other National, State, or local
requirements.
Categorical Standards:
National, uniform, technology-based standards.
Specific industrial groups.
Local Limits:
Address specific needs and concerns of
the POTW and its receiving water.
Typically, all industrial users
discharging to the POTW.
Scope and Methodology
We reviewed data from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory and Permit Compliance
Systems, as well as annual pretreatment reports prepared by POTWs, to determine
trends in transfers of pollutants. We interviewed staff from EPA, State agencies,
and POTWs to evaluate program oversight and measurement. Our field work was
conducted from March 21, 2003, to February 27, 2004, in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States. Additional details on our scope and methodology can be found in
Appendix A. No recent audit or evaluation reports have been issued on EPA's
National Pretreatment Program.
3

-------
4

-------
Chapter 2
Pretreatment Program Gains Have Leveled Off
The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation's sewer systems that
characterized the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured
according to EPA published data compiled from information provided by
industrial facilities. Changes in the amount of pollution that industrial users
discharge into sewers is a good indication of how successful this program has
been. Measured by volume as well as an index of risk associated with a broad list
of toxic pollutants, there has been little change since the middle of the 1990s. As
a result, the performance of EPA's pretreatment program, which is responsible for
controlling these discharges, is threatened and progress toward achieving the
Congress' Clean Water Act goal of eliminating toxic discharges that can harm
water quality has stalled. The curtailing of the early gains may be explained in
part by two factors: (1) dischargers that developed systems in response to EPA's
initial program requirements have not enhanced their pretreatment systems in
recent years, and (2) the rate at which EPA has been issuing effluent guidelines
dramatically declined since 1990.
Trends in Industrial User Discharges
We determined the pretreatment program's progress in reducing industrial user
discharges on a national basis using EPA's Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
System [i.e., Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)]. This is a publicly available
database that contains information on toxic chemical releases provided by certain
industry groups. We also determined the trends in relative risk of these pollutants
using EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators.
Following are charts detailing our various TRI analyses. However, it should also
be noted that the TRI database is subject to error. OIG Report No. 2004-P-00004,
EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Industrial Reporting to the Toxics Release
Inventory System, February 2, 2004, identified TRI reporting errors by industries
that significantly altered our initial conclusions. The charts presented include our
corrections. Additionally, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance issued The National Nitrate Compliance Initiative in April 2002 which
noted that many facilities were not reporting the transfer of nitrates to TRI.
According to EPA, the initiative improved reporting from 60 to 98 percent in
recent years. This problem did not affect our final analysis since we subtracted
nitrates.
5

-------
Transfer of Pollutants
The transfer of pollutants to POTWs decreased by approximately 50 percent from
1987 to 1995, then climbed up again by approximately 100 percent froml995 to
2001. Figure 2(A) shows that the increase was the result of requirements for the
reporting of additional pollutants starting in 1995. Pollutants reported
consistently from 1987 to 2001 show a leveling off in transfers since 1995.
Trends in Pollutant Transfers to POTWs
~ 1987 Original Pollutants ¦ Pollutants added to TRI in 1995

350

300
£
O
250
i
200
£

tfl
T3
150
£

O
0.
100

50

0
1987 1989
1991
1993 1995 1997 1999
2001
Figure 2(A): Transfer of pollutants to POTWs increased starting in 1995.
For pollutants added since 1995, we found another subset to explain the increase.
Nitrate compounds - a pollutant that POTWs incidentally treat - were responsible
for the significant increase in transfers since 1995. Figure 2(B) shows that when
we removed nitrate compounds from the table, there is a leveling off of transfers.
Figure 2(B) also shows that trends for transfers were mirrored by manufacturing
activity, suggesting that the decreases and leveling off of transfers were not the
result of
decreased
productivity. In
fact, the 2001
Annual Survey of
Manufacturers
reports that
manufacturing
activity increased
from 1987 to
2001.
Trends in Discharges to POTWs
300,000,000
250,000,000
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
[HI
ftft
/

1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
~ Loadings ~ Normalized by Manufacturing
Risk
Figure 2(B): Transfers leveled off since 1995 without nitrates even when
economy considered.
6

-------
After a significant decrease from 1987 tol988, the risk associated with pollutants
tracked in TRI since 1987 shows no apparent trend, while the risk associated with
pollutants added since 1995 has been increasing. We used EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators to assess the potential impact related to oral ingestion
toxicity of the industrial releases to POTWs. Our analysis considered the
following information: the amount of chemical released, the toxicity of the
chemical, its fate, and transport through the environment.
Figure 2(C) shows that the risk associated with the 1987 chemicals was reduced
by 60 percent from 1987 to 1988. Risk showed a further decrease in 1995, with
some increases in 1998, 1999, and 2001. This figure does not include individual
discharges that could materially affect the results of our review (such as a single
plant in Tennessee discharging thorium dioxide, which significantly increased the
risk during 1995 and 1996; thorium dioxide is a radioactive substance that has the
highest toxicity weight among the TRI pollutants).
'Risk" Due to TRI Discharges to POTWs
(original pollutants)
000
000 -f
000
000
000
000
0
1987
1989 1991
1993 1995
1997
1999
2001
Figure 2(C): Risk reduced since 1987.
Our analysis of the 1995 pollutants showed the risk of these pollutants increasing
even when we eliminated single facilities discharging highly toxic pollutants that
caused significant increases in 2000 and 2001. See Figure 2(D).
7

-------
Trends in Risk
(minus bromine, dimethylamine, and nitrapyrin)
W 100 n
I 80	|—,
i 60 _j=j n n —
e 40- — — — — — —
% 20 	 	 	 	 	 	
u. o +-1——l_^J—l_^J—l_^J—l_^J—L
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
Figure 2(D): Risk associated with 1995 pollutants increased.
Enforcement of Regulations as Motivating Factor
The significant drop in the transfer of pollutants during the late 1980s may be
explained in part because EPA issued most of it regulations during the 1970s and
1980s. Our sample of industrial users indicated that most were still using their
original pretreatment systems from this period.
In 1997, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water attributed the progress made in
improving water quality as the result of technology-based effluent guidelines
implemented through the NPDES program, and the Federally funded construction
of sewage treatment plants. Effluent guidelines are industrial water pollution
control regulations for facilities discharging directly to surface waters and
indirectly to POTWs. "Categorical standards" are issued for indirect dischargers
through the National Pretreatment Program. Prior to 1991, when there was the
first drop in transfers, EPA had issued 49 effluent guidelines; since that time to
1999, only 7 new and revised effluent guidelines were issued. This may explain
the initially significant drop in pollutant transfers and then a leveling off period.
Our interviews with representatives from 16 companies showed that companies
installed pretreatment systems in response to regulations, and most maintain
original systems going back to the 1980s. Of the 16 companies, 14 have a
pretreatment process. Of those 14:
One said their pretreatment system went back to the 1970s.
Eight said their system went back to the 1980s.
One said their system went back to 1991.
Three said their system was approximately 10 or less years old.
One did not know the age of the system.
8

-------
Of the 10 companies which knew their system was 10 or more years old, one
made a change in 2001 to meet new categorical regulations and another made a
change to prevent a Safe Drinking Water Act violation. Due to the age of the
industrial users' pretreatment systems and the length of service of the staff
contacted, not everyone could explain why their companies installed pretreatment
systems. However six did indicate that their pretreatment systems were required
by their POTWs and one by the Clean Water Act.
Representatives indicated regulations certainly had an impact on actions taken.
For example:
A representative for a Minnesota firm indicated that regulations provided the
impetus for companies to change operations because the financial staff would
otherwise question the purchase of equipment not contributing to profit. The
official noted the company still uses tin/lead solder because it is requested by
their customers and will continue to use it unless it becomes illegal.
A representative for an Indiana firm stated that what finally motivated the
company to eliminate the use of chromium was to address a Safe Drinking
Water Act violation caused by its discharge of fluoride to its local POTW.
This company and others were allowed to discharge fluoride to the POTW in
accordance with the local pretreatment program. However, the fluoride was
discovered downstream to be in excess of drinking water standards. This
Indiana firm was subsequently awarded the 2002 Indiana Governor's Awards
for Environmental Excellence for eliminating the chromate conversion
coating process that resulted in fluoride discharges. According to the local
POTW superintendent, having a pretreatment program in place made it easier
to identify the polluting companies, require monitoring, and work with the
firm.
Conclusion
The reduction in transfers of toxic pollutants to POTWs has not been reduced
since the mid 1990s. The reduction of risk for oral ingestion for some of these
pollutants shows no apparent trend indicative of progress. Significant reductions
in transfers were seen in prior years when EPA was active in establishing its
pretreatment program and issuing numerous effluent guidelines. EPA needs to
take stock of its pretreatment program to determine how it will eventually fully
meet Congress' goal of the elimination of toxic discharges to the nation's waters.
Otherwise, wastewater treatment facilities remain vulnerable to industrial waste
discharges that can disrupt plant operations or pass through to receiving waters,
resulting in poor water quality and potential harm to human health and the
environment.
9

-------
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
The Agency noted that many reportable pollutants are able to be treated by typical
POTW biological processes and the receipt of large transfers of these pollutant
may be somewhat misleading. They suggested that an analysis of incompatible
pollutants (metals, cyanide, and organics) that are the focus of the pretreatment
program would be a better assessment of the effectiveness of the pretreatment
program. The Agency also believed that our conclusion did not adequately note
the changes in TRI reporting requirements or link the risk for oral ingestion of
indirectly discharged industrial process wastewater to the disruption of POTW
operations.
Our review was broad in nature to give an overall picture of EPA's efforts to
implement its pretreatment program. It was not our intent to provide detailed
reviews of particular industries or pollutants. We believe that our review shows
that when EPA applied resources to implementing its pretreatment program,
reductions in transfers of toxic pollutants resulted. As the program received less
attention and resources, those results leveled off. The Office of Water may want
to conduct on its own the further analyses it suggested as part of its development
of performance measures or to identify areas needing additional attention.
While our review did include transfers from new industrial sectors and lowered
reporting thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals, these differences
did not significantly impact our figures. Our conclusion regarding the risk for
oral ingestion does not make a link to the disruption of POTW operations. We
are only stating that we do not see any indications of reduced pollutant toxicity.
10

-------
Chapter 3
More POTWs Need to Adopt National Pretreatment
Programs
Our review of 22 POTWs suggests that the pretreatment program should be
extended to at least some of the POTWs without approved programs because,
they reported having encountered more operational problems and were more
likely to be discharging to an impaired waters than POTWs with approved
programs. Specifically,
The proportion of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs that
experienced a pass through/interference event (17 percent) was less than half
the proportion of POTWs without approved programs (40 percent).
The difference between the proportion of POTWs with approved programs
that discharged to an impaired water (25 percent) was even smaller compared
to the proportion of POTWs without approved programs that discharged to an
impaired water (60 percent).
One possible explanation is that EPA Regions and State agencies that are
supposed to act as control authorities for POTWs without approved programs do
not have standards for overseeing industrial users discharging to these POTWs.
Although EPA was working on necessary guidance for these Regions and States,
the project was put on hold due to other priorities. Some Regional staff also
indicated that such POTWs receive less of a priority because they are small and
their discharge probably will not have a significant impact on the receiving
waters. However, our observation that a significant number of POTWs without
pretreatment programs discharge into waterbodies that fail to meet water quality
standards suggests that some of these systems would benefit from additional
controls similar to those imposed on POTWs with pretreatment programs. Also,
industries in such communities may be receiving an unfair advantage over their
competitors that receive more monitoring.
POTWs with Pretreatment Programs More Likely to Meet Standards
With some exceptions, the 12 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs we
contacted indicated that they administer their programs in accordance with EPA
pretreatment regulations. Such consistency derives from these POTWs having
standard guidance to follow and being subject to EPA and State audits that
reinforce standards. For the 10 POTWs contacted that did not have pretreatment
programs, 6 of the POTWs nonetheless carried out program elements comparably
11

-------
to POTWs with approved programs. Those six POTWs had pretreatment program
requirements included in their NPDES permits by State agencies.
Table 3.1 compares how well POTWs from both the approved and non-approved
pretreatment groups met minimum pretreatment standards. Using EPA's 1999
guide, Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, as a model, we
identified six basic elements needed to administer an approved pretreatment
program. Our use of the phrase "required program element" differs slightly from
EPA's use of the phrase identified on page 2. Our review emphasized POTWs
implementation of the program; we did not evaluate legal authority or funding.
We obtained the respondents' information from questionnaires and site visits to
the POTWs, Regions, and State agencies. For the POTWs visited, we also
reviewed, if available, their annual pretreatment reports, Regional/State audit
reports, and other related documents. The six elements are listed in Table 3.1.
Further details on each of the six elements, including the importance of each and
findings, are in Appendix B; a breakdown on actions taken for each location by
element are in Appendix C.
Table 3.1: Comparison of POTWs in Meeting Minimum Pretreatment Standards
Required
Program Element
Criteria
(40 CFR Section)
Approved
Programs
(12 Respondents)
Non-approved
Programs
(10 Respondents)
Identify industrial users
§403.8(f)(2)(l)
100%
80%
Develop Local Limits
§403.8(f)(4) and
122.21 (j)(4)
83.3% *
60%
Issue individual permits to
significant industrial users
§403.8(f)(1)(iii)
100%
50%
Inspect and sample industrial
users annually at a minimum
-	Inspect
-	Sample
§403.8(f)(2)(v)
100%
100%
70%
50%
Have approved Enforcement
Response Plans
§403.8(f)(5)
91.7%
Not Applicable
Submit Annual Pretreatment
Report
§403.12(1)
100%
70%
* The remaining two POTWs were developing local limits.
For four of the required program elements (issuing individual permits to
significant industrial users, inspecting and sampling industrial users, having
approved enforcement response plans, and submitting annual pretreatment
reports), the probability that POTWs with approved program would meet these
minimum standards if program approval made no difference is less than 0.05. For
two of the seven required program elements (identifying industrial users and
12

-------
developing local limits), the probability that POTWs with approved plans would
have these minimum standards if program approval made no difference
approaches statistical significance (p < 0.083). This means that for the 22
POTWs reviewed, having an approved plan is statistically, significantly more
likely to result in POTWs meeting at least some of the minimum standards than if
there were no approved program.
The applicability of this finding to the entire population of POTWs nationwide is
limited. This is due, in part, to the small sample size and in part to the selection
criteria used to choose POTWs for this study. While most of the POTWs were
selected at random within specific Regions, one POTW with an approved
program was selected because EPA officials described it as a "good" program.
Another POTW without an approved program was selected because EPA
indicated the POTW was having problems. Even when these two facilities are
excluded from the analysis, however, five of the applicable criteria approach or
achieve statistical significance (p < 0.63). With these two POTWs excluded from
the analysis, the identification of industrial users is the only minimum standard
likely to be met regardless of whether or not a facility has an approved program.
For our selected POTWs, we attempted to determine what benefits a POTW can
derive from maintaining an approved pretreatment program by comparing the
reported number of pass through/interference events between the approved/non-
approved POTWs and identifying which POTWs discharged to an impaired
water. Table 3.2 summarizes the results of our questionnaire responses and our
review of EPA's WATERS data base reporting water bodies identified as being
on the State 303(d) impaired water list. Information on the WATERS data base
has limitations. States only report 303(d) impairments for assessed waterbodies,
and most waterbodies are not assessed. Additionally, further analyses should be
done before determining an actual causal relationship between the POTW source
and the impaired waters. However, given the limitations in data availability, we
believe our analysis can provide a general indication of results.
Table 3.2: Summary - Pass Through/Interference, Impaired Waters

12 POTWs With
Approved Programs
10 POTWs Without
Approved Programs
No. of
POTWs
Percentage
of Total
No. of
POTWs
Percentage
of Total
Reported pass through/interference
within past 2 years
2
17%
4
40%
Discharging to 303(d) impaired water
3
25%
6
60%
13

-------
The probability that 17 percent or fewer of the POTWs with approved programs
would experience a pass through/interference event in the past two years if having
an approved program made no difference is 0.83. The probability that 25 percent
or fewer of the POTWs with approved programs would discharge to an impaired
water is 0.015. This indicates that for the 22 POTWs selected, having an
approved program has an effect on whether or not a POTW will experience a pass
through/interference event or discharge to an impaired water.
When the two POTWs described above are excluded from the analysis, having an
approved program does not appear to affect whether a facility will experience a
pass through/interference event (p = 0.234), but having an approved program is
still significantly less likely to result in a POTW discharging to an impaired water
(p = 0.013).
Waters on the 303(d) list may be impaired from sources other than POTWs
passing industrial or non-industrial pollutants. Even when industrial pollutants
are reported as the cause, the source of impairment is often not reported, so it is
not easy to draw a direct correlation between an impaired water and a POTW's
pretreatment program. For POTWs with approved programs, two of the three
receiving waters were impaired due to metals and other pollutants; for POTWs
without approved programs, three of the six waters were impaired due to metals
and other pollutants. EPA's WATERS database provided the source of
impairment for only one of the nine impaired receiving waters.
POTW Program Implementation Can Be Improved for Two Elements
While the results of our survey questionnaire indicated general consistency in
implementation for POTWs with approved programs, our review of State audit
reports and interviews with POTW staff indicated that the elements of identifying
industrial users and enforcement could be improved especially for smaller sized
POTWs. EPA can help these POTWs by expanding the training it already
provides and ensuring that there are adequate resources available to conduct
audits of POTW pretreatment programs.
Identifying Industrial Users
Small to medium-sized POTWs indicated that classifying industries was
sometimes difficult because the regulations may be too complex to understand.
For example, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission reported in
its audit of Brenham, Texas, a small-sized POTW, that it continued to experience
difficulties in making categorical determinations. By not properly classifying
industrial users, appropriate permits were not issued and enforcement taken.
Other pretreatment coordinators at POTWs agreed that it can be difficult to stay
current with regulations and to apply them, particularly in determining whether an
14

-------
industry is a categorical industrial user.
Enforcement
Review of annual pretreatment reports to determine whether POTWs were
escalating enforcement actions (e.g., administrative orders, fines, etc.) disclosed
that while the two selected large-sized POTWs reviewed showed evidence of
escalating enforcement, the medium to small-sized POTWs varied in their efforts.
POTWs without approved programs are not required to develop Enforcement
Response Plans and may not have authority to take formal enforcement actions.
All 10 POTWs contacted stated they notify industrial users of any violations and
usually resolve any issues by phone, meeting, or mail, but few indicated they
escalate action to a higher level. Only three indicated that formal actions such as
Administrative Orders had been issued. Examples on enforcement issues are in
Appendix D.
Training
In addition to guidance, training is a way to promote program consistency. EPA
Headquarters provides basic and advanced pretreatment classes nationally. Some
of the Regions also provide pretreatment training, as do most of our selected
States. However, three of the six States, as well as some POTW officials, said
EPA should provide more training, and one also recommended that EPA develop
pro forma documents to assist POTWs in developing local limits. These
responses indicate that EPA needs to more clearly communicate to POTWs what
training is available. In addition, EPA may want to look into providing on-line
training.
Audits
Regional and State audits of POTW-approved pretreatment programs ensure that
these programs are maintaining standards and provide indirect scrutiny of
industrial users. EPA's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal
was for Regions and States to both audit 100 percent of programs over a 5-year
period (20 percent is the Annual Performance Goal within GPRA measures).
EPA's Office of Water could provide only limited data on attainment of this goal,
which shows that not all the Regions/States were meeting the GPRA goal. For
fiscal years 2000 and 2002, six Regions conducted audits of at least 20 percent of
their approved programs. Regions 1, 5, 9, and 10 did not meet the goal for fiscal
year 2000, while Regions 1, 3, 4, and 10 did not meet it for 2002. Since Regions
1 and 10 did not conduct 20 percent of the audits for either year, there is the
possibility that they may not meet the 100-percent goal over a 5-year period.
Region l's pretreatment coordinator had written in a 1999 memorandum to
Headquarters that he could not meet the 20 percent annual goal because resources
had been reduced from six full-time equivalents in 1995 to one by 1999.
15

-------
Regional and State Support and Oversight Can Be Improved for
POTWs Without Approved Programs
Regions and State Agencies support POTWs that have approved programs by
providing various training opportunities and overseeing their activities with
audits, and this helps to promote greater national consistency. We found less
consistency in support of POTWs without approved programs. Regions and
States cannot always oversee industrial users discharging to POTWs without
approved programs and such POTWs may or may not be required by their State or
Region to oversee their industrial users. To ensure greater national consistency,
EPA needs to finalize the guidance it has put on hold to address this area.
Regions and State Agencies as Control Authorities
Regions and State Agencies, as control authorities, are not required to implement
their activities at the same frequency as imposed on municipalities who
implement their approved programs. We found that few of those we reviewed
inspected or sampled industrial users in accordance with standards required of
POTWs. This is due to the large universe of industrial users spread throughout a
State and the limited amount of State and Regional staff. If Regions or States are
not adequately monitoring these industrial users, their operations and workers are
vulnerable to toxic discharges causing disruptions and injury. Some States have
recognized their limitations and have included oversight responsibilities in these
POTWs' NPDES permits. EPA had been working on developing guidance for
overseeing categorical and significant industrial users discharging to POTWs
without approved programs, but has put it off due to other priorities.
Appendix E shows how selected EPA Regions and State Agencies oversee
industrial users when they are designated as the control authority. Except for
New Jersey and Ohio, Regions and States do not inspect and sample in
accordance with pretreatment standards required for POTWs.
We found that States added pretreatment program requirements in the NPDES
permits of POTWs without approved EPA pretreatment programs. This is one
way to address the States' ability to adequately oversee the great number of
significant industrial users discharging to POTWs without approved programs.
EPA does not know how many significant industrial users discharge to POTWs
without approved programs, but has determined that over 28,000 significant
industrial users (of which approximately 13,000 are categorical industrial users)
discharge to POTWs with approved programs. This figure gives an indication of
how vast the universe is for monitoring industrial users.
As an example, the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality staff estimated
that there are a potential 1,750 industrial users discharging to POTWs without
16

-------
approved programs, of which only 24 (or 1.4 percent) are reporting to the State.
State officials advised us that when Region 6 transferred pretreatment program
delegation to the State in 1998, categorical industrial users discharging to POTWs
without approved pretreatment programs were not adequately identified. The
State has been in the process of identifying these industrial users since 1998.
States Require POTWs Without Approved Programs to Assume
Oversight Responsibilities
Table 3.1 shows that POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are more
likely to carry out minimum pretreatment programs. However, further analysis of
our 10 POTWs without approved programs showed that six of these POTWs had
pretreatment oversight responsibilities included in their NPDES permits by the
State. Each of these six POTWs carried out the program elements with few
exceptions (See Appendix C). All six stated they had developed local limits,
which is better than the 10 of 12 selected POTWs with approved programs. Only
one of the six (17 percent) experienced a pass through event, which is the same
observed among approved program groups (also 17 percent). Two of the six (33
percent) discharge to an impaired water compared to three of the 12 (25 percent)
for the approved group.
Of the remaining four POTWs that did not have any pretreatment program
requirements, few carried out all the program elements. None of the four had
developed local limits. Three of the four experienced a pass through/interference
event and all four discharged to an impaired water (see Appendix C).
When appropriate, requiring POTWs to assume more oversight activities appears
to be beneficial to both the Regions/States as well as the POTW. Nonetheless, the
Regions and States will still need to provide oversight to ensure that appropriate
formal enforcement is taken. Requiring these POTWs to submit an annual
pretreatment report, including information on violators, could alert State and
Regional officials of potential enforcement issues.
Conclusion
Based on our study of 22 POTWs, we conclude that POTWs do not develop
pretreatment programs to control their industrial users unless required by EPA or
a State Agency. Our study shows POTWs with approved pretreatment programs
are more likely to meet most of the minimum program requirements than POTWs
without approved programs. These POTWs are also less likely to experience pass
through/interference events and to discharge to an impaired water compared to
POTWs without approved programs. Although this study does not permit us to
determine cause and effect, it is reasonable to believe that meeting the minimum
program standards of an approved pretreatment program is likely to result in
fewer pass through/interference events. We cannot link the cause of an impaired
17

-------
water body to a POTW's implementation of a pretreatment program. However,
our sampled POTWs without approved programs were more likely to discharge to
an impaired water indicating a need for such POTWs to be concerned with the
quality of their discharge. As a result, we believe POTWs without approved
pretreatment programs should be encouraged to oversee their industrial users.
Especially, since we found that EPA Regions and States acting as control
authorities cannot always oversee to the same level as POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs. EPA needs to complete its guide on overseeing industrial
users discharging to POTWs without approved pretreatment programs. However,
even when POTWs assume greater oversight responsibilities, EPA and States
must still play a role in ensuring that POTWs understand regulations, which are
sometimes complex, and that POTWs are taking appropriate enforcement actions.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water direct staff to:
3.1	Finalize its guidance on regulating industrial users discharging to a POTW
without an approved program and provide milestones for doing so to the
OIG. This guidance should provide recommended frequency of various
oversight activities such as inspections and sampling. If the Office of
Water cannot finalize its guidance within 90 days of report issuance, it
should provide quarterly progress reports to the OIG until this action is
complete.
3.2	For Regions and States unable to follow EPA's guidance for basic
oversight of industrial users discharging to POTWs without approved
programs, encourage the Regions/States to have these POTWs assume
oversight responsibilities as part of their NPDES permit requirements.
3.3	Encourage Regions/States to have POTWs without approved programs
that are conducting oversight responsibilities to report on an annual basis
violations and enforcement action taken to their control/approval
authority.
3.4	Promote training opportunities to all POTWs by determining: a) the
POTWs' ability to access information on EPA's website and b) the types
of training POTWs need.
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
The Office of Water staff agreed that guidance on tracking, overseeing, and
controlling significant industrial users is important to ensure achievement of the
18

-------
pretreatment program's goals. As part of its comprehensive assessment of the
NPDES program, the Office of Water will document Regional and State oversight
capabilities and develop a "toolbox" based on how Regions and States are
overseeing industrial users discharging to POTWs without approved pretreatment
programs. The toolbox, along with the development of standardized accounting
of these significant industrial users will assist in future oversight.
The Office of Water also stated that the pretreatment regulations do not impose
minimum inspection or sampling frequencies on EPA Regions and States in either
their roles as Approval or Control Authorities.
The Office of Water believed that reporting of significant industrial user problems
in NPDES permit applications and categorical industrial user reporting of non-
compliance is adequate for notifying Regional/State control agencies of
violations. It was additionally pointed out that POTWs without approved
pretreatment programs do not always have enforcement authority and that it is the
responsibility of the permitting authority to increase reporting beyond the current
regulations, determined on a case-by-case basis.
The Office of Water agreed that training is key to maintaining pretreatment
program knowledge and has been discussing with Regions/States the need for
improved publicity of available training.
Our finding indicated that pretreatment programs do benefit POTWs and their
receiving waters. First, we believe that EPA should set standards for
Regions/States acting as control authorities; they should set an example to
POTWs. Second, in cases where the Regions/States cannot meet this standard,
they should encourage the Regions/States to allow POTWs without approved
programs to assume oversight responsibilities. We found State agencies have
taken the initiative in expanding the benefits of the pretreatment program to
POTWs that normally would not be candidates for approved program status.
However, we believe EPA should lead the effort to expand this protection by
issuing guidance documents encouraging permitting agencies to do so. EPA's
lead should provide for more national consistency.
When POTWs without approved programs assume pretreatment oversight
responsibilities, they should also be required to submit annual reports on
violations and enforcement action for two reasons. 1) Because such POTWs may
not have enforcement authority, the control agency needs to be aware of
enforcement activity. 2) Current reporting mechanism do not ensure that the
control authority receives timely and objective information to ensure that timely
and appropriate enforcement has occurred. NPDES permit applications that
identify problems with significant industrial users are reviewed at best every four
and one-half years. With the current backlog, reviews are probably taking longer.
Reporting by categorical industrial users is a self-reporting mechanism.
19

-------
20

-------
Chapter 4
Pretreatment Program Needs Improved Direction,
Data, and Performance Measures
Without more visible leadership from Headquarters, improved programmatic
information, and the adoption of results-based performance measures, EPA's
pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it made in its early years. The
leveling off of those early gains, along with EPA's diminished emphasis on the
program, paints a picture of a program at risk. Headquarters has delayed
finalizing guides and regulations intended to update the pretreatment program by
not allocating sufficient resources to complete these projects because resources
were assigned to newer, developing programs such as homeland security and
storm water. However, EPA did not request additional funding to cover the needs
of its pretreatment program. As a result, POTWs' pretreatment programs may
not be as effective in protecting environmental quality and worker health and
safety as they could be, and EPA cannot assess the effectiveness of its
pretreatment program.
Developing a High Performance Organization Evaluated
In evaluating how well EPA is maintaining pretreatment program gains and
addressing future needs, we used criteria from GPRA, the Malcolm Baldrige
Award Program, and EPA. Specifically, based on what we were reviewing, we
evaluated EPA's performance in three of the seven key areas based on the
Baldrige program's criteria: leadership, information and analysis, and
performance results.
EPA Can Improve Leadership
EPA can improve its leadership functions - such as modifying regulations,
developing technical guidance, and overseeing program implementation - by
ensuring national consistency. Responses from Regions, States, POTWs, and
other stakeholders indicated that EPA Headquarters was not setting pretreatment
program direction or providing sufficient technical guidance and training.
EPA devotes time and resources to developing its customer relationships, such as
sponsoring national conferences, but it has not assigned the resources necessary to
complete the tasks that could address some customer needs. According to EPA's
February 1999 Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, Headquarters
responsibilities include overseeing program implementation at all levels,
developing and modifying program regulations, developing policies to clarify and
further define the program, and developing technical guidance for program
21

-------
implementation. EPA began projects to further develop and modify its
pretreatment program, but in recent years has not devoted sufficient resources to
complete the projects, as shown by the following examples. For the period, 1995
to 2000, EPA did not request additional funding for its pretreatment program.
In 1995, the Office of Water developed options and a basic plan in response to
the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' (AMSA's) concern of
excessive administrative burdens. EPA issued its proposed streamlining rule
in 1999 but had still not finalized it by 2004.
EPA issued guidance in 1987 to assist POTWs to develop local limits. In
1997, the Agency started work to revise this guidance because the 1987
inhibition and removal efficiency data did not reflect the current diversity of
POTW wastewater treatment utilized. The guide was finalized in July 2004.
EPA formed a workgroup in 2000 to address industrial user discharging to
POTWs without approved pretreatment programs. The group started to
develop guidance 2001, but that work has been put on hold.
Updating guidance on distinguishing industries subject to New Source versus
Existing Source standards has also been put on hold. Industries that
significantly change their process may be considered New Sources and need
to meet stricter discharge limits.
The following table summarizes responses from 10 Regions and 6 States to an
open-ended question on how EPA could improve its pretreatment program.
Table 4.1: Regional and State Recommendations for Improvement
Recommended Improvement
Region
State
More resources
9
2
Consistency in interpreting rules/regulations
4

Need Headquarters leadership on categorical determinations
3
4
Finalize various guidance/regulations
3
3
Create database/Permit Compliance System modernization
3

Provide more training opportunities

3
Review program for new/developing issues

2
Increase oversight and assistance on core requirements
2

Develop pretreatment program measures
2

Improve communication among Headquarters offices
2

Develop a pleadings policy, higher administrative authority
1

Focus on loading/local limits of non-conservative pollutants
1

Identify criminal violations and support criminal investigations
1

22

-------
The 2004 Baldrige criteria provide a description of leadership as setting
directions, values, and expectations while balancing the needs of all stakeholders.
The Regional and State responses stressed a need for national consistency.
National consistency was also identified as a priority goal by Regional and State
pretreatment coordinators during the 2003 EPA National Pretreatment
Conference.
Better Information and Analysis Needed
EPA does not have the information systems necessary to effectively measure,
analyze, demonstrate, and improve program performance. EPA collects influent,
effluent, and biosolids data, but it is not uniformly entered into EPA's Permit
Compliance System (PCS). Also, because EPA has not established results-based
measures for its pretreatment program (as noted in the next section), data
collection and systems are not geared toward providing EPA with an analysis of
program progress. Without sufficient data to show the gains made by its
pretreatment program, EPA leaves this program vulnerable to future budget cuts.
Our efforts to utilize PCS and annual pretreatment reports prepared by POTWs to
determine trends in discharges of metals to and from 10 POTWs were largely
unsuccessful (see Appendix F). We found that PCS was not a good source of data
for evaluating trends for industrial pollutants because: (1) only 3 of the 10
Regions input influent data into PCS; (2) NPDES permits did not always require
the monitoring of industrial pollutant in effluent; and (3) sludge data in PCS is
limited because EPA did not consider its entry as a high priority. (Some Regions
indicated that sludge data is entered into EPA's biosolids database but even this
was not consistent.)
While the pretreatment regulations do not specifically require POTWs to include
sampling data in the annual pretreatment reports, the regulations do allow the
approval authority to require other relevant data. We found that 9 of our 12
selected POTWs were including data in their annual reports. However, these data
were not gathered or analyzed nationally. In our opinion, EPA is missing an
opportunity to gather and analyze data to evaluate the environmental results of the
pretreatment program. EPA could develop a statistical sampling plan and
coordinate with State approving authorities to request the required information.
More POTWs have NPDES requirements to monitor metals now than in 1991,
when EPA issued its Report to Congress on its assessment of the National
Pretreatment Program, as shown in Figure 4(A). All nine individual metals we
reviewed demonstrated significant increases between 1991 and the present. We
found that of the 1,890 POTWs covered by an approved pretreatment program,
72.5 percent had from 1 to 12 metals included as a monitoring requirement in
their NPDES permit. The reason for this increase can be due to a variety of
factors, it does not necessarily mean that the levels of these pollutants increased at
23

-------
the POTWs. In some cases, a new pollutant limit in a permit may be due to the
development of a new Water Quality Standard. In other cases, a new limit may
be due to development of or changes to the permitting authorities' procedures for
imposing water quality based effluent limits.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Metal Limits for POTWs with Approved
Pretreatment Programs
~ 1991 B2004
Figure 4(A): Comparison of Metal Limits in NPDES permits 1991 to 2004
In addition to the problems we encountered with the PCS data, Regional
responses indicated that PCS is not meeting their needs. Four of the 10 Regions
said they use another data system to track their pretreatment programs, while 3
others indicated they used other systems as well as PCS. This can result in
duplication of information. EPA recently created a "modernized" version of PCS
due to fundamental changes to the NPDES program. The modernized PCS will
require the entry of more pretreatment data but it will be activity-based data.
Additionally, full PCS modernization is in jeopardy due to funding shortages and
implementation date slippage, according to OIG Report No. 2003-M-00014,
EPA Should Take Further Steps to Address Funding Shortfalls and Time
Slippages in Permit Compliance System Modernization Effort, May 20, 2003.
A later report from October 2003 notes that EPA has delayed modernization of
PCS to fiscal year 2006.
Performance Measures Need to Be Results-Based
Measuring the impact of a program is essential to documenting program
performance to support continued funding and identify future needs. EPA's
pretreatment measures have been activity-based to show compliance with
program regulations or that compliance mechanisms are in place, rather than
noting the impact of the program on the environment. EPA is aware of the
limitations of its pretreatment program measures and has been evaluating other
measures since
24

-------
1994, but has found it difficult to develop results-based measures for the
following reasons:
Data are often limited or inconsistently collected or maintained.
Factors such as production, plant openings/closings, change in process or
material, etc., can affect industrial discharge.
Pipe corrosion may be the source of copper rather than industry.
Measures such as biosolids may not apply to all POTWs.
Reduction of loadings may not exclusively be due to pretreatment activities.
GPRA and the President's Management Agenda state agencies need to be
accountable and provide evidence on program results to ensure continued
existence. Developing results-based measures may be complicated, as indicated
above, but EPA needs to develop these measures to the best of its ability and
disclose any limitations. EPA cannot hope to support the funding it needs for its
pretreatment program without showing program results. Also, EPA cannot
determine program direction without adequate measures.
EPA partly funded a workgroup of Agency, State, industry, POTW, and AMS A
representatives to identify results-oriented measures of the performance of the
national pretreatment program. AMSA issued a report on the workgroup's
conclusions on July 11, 1994. According to AMSA, the "most important
finding" is that adequate data does not exist in many locations to measure
pretreatment program performance using indicators of the quality of the ambient
environment. AMSA further stated that environmental measures appear useful in
assessing the aggregate performance of all water quality programs, but very few
true environmental measures can be linked unambiguously to elements of the
pretreatment program alone.
EPA's Chief Financial Officer, Office of Policy, Analysis, and Accountability
hired a contractor in 2001 to examine EPA's proposed pretreatment performance
metrics, and evaluate how well they measured actual program performance and
met GPRA objectives. In a May 19, 2002, memorandum, the contractor
concluded that: (1) the proposed performance measurement metrics had many
limitations, were not closely enough linked to environmental improvements, and
would not facilitate accurate assessments of the value of pretreatment nor enable
improved operational decisions; and (2) modernization of PCS appeared to
address many of the weaknesses in the current PCS.
In its 2004 Congressional Justification for its budget, EPA wrote that it was
developing a model to estimate pollutant reductions from POTWs, both with and
without pretreatment programs. As of April 2004, the National Pretreatment
Coordinator stated that a model was developed in 2003, but pretreatment data was
not included. Additional funding to include pretreatment data in the model was
not provided. The Coordinator also stated that there are so many factors to
25

-------
consider in developing a pretreatment model that its accuracy would be uncertain.
The Water Permits Division Director said that the pretreatment program's impact
on the environment would be evaluated as part of EPA's watershed program.
However, EPA will still have a challenge in showing results on a watershed basis
because of a lack of quality and consistent data. Regardless, we believe that EPA
also needs to evaluate the pretreatment program on its own as well as part of a
watershed, since the watershed approach will not assist the Agency in identifying
specific industrial problems and trends.
Conclusion
The pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it has made if EPA does
not become more vigorous in setting national policy and developing program
measures that can adequately document the program's progress. While EPA has
made attempts to update its program, much of this work has not been finalized.
Management is planning to finalize a portion of the streamlining rule and the
local limits guide, but the development of results-based measures specifically for
the pretreatment program has been discarded in favor of overall, watershed
measures. However, this approach also will have a challenge documenting results
because of limited data, and it will not enable EPA to measure progress or
identify problems related to specific pollutants or industries. Lack of resources
was given as the reason for not accomplishing all the tasks, yet EPA did not
determine the level of resources it needed, then ask for additional funding for its
pretreatment program.
Considering the fact that the pretreatment program has not made significant
progress in the past 10 years, now is the time for EPA to take stock of its
pretreatment program. It needs to develop goals on how to further reduce toxic
transfers to POTWs and the risk associated with those pollutants so that it can
fully realize Congress' goal - the elimination of toxic pollutants to the nation's
waters. The appropriate level of resources needed to do this should be identified
and requested.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water direct staff to:
4.1 Develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for developing
pretreatment results-based measurements; determine the resources
necessary to carry out the strategy; and gain the support of other Agency,
State, and POTW staff to carry out the strategy. Provide milestones for
the development of this strategy to the OIG, and if this strategy cannot be
completed with 90 days of report issuance, provide quarterly progress
reports to the OIG until results-based measures are developed.
26

-------
4.2 Set milestones for finalizing the streamlining rule, local limits, and other
applicable guidance. Provide milestone dates to the OIG, and if the
products are not completed within 90 days of report issuance, provide
quarterly progress reports to the OIG until the products are finalized.
4.3 Evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to enable it to
make further reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk. The
additional funding should be requested in the next funding cycle.
Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation
Before it can develop pretreatment results-based measures, the Office of Water
plans on obtaining further information on data and data systems. Using the PER
Process, the Office of Water is compiling information regarding current data
systems at the Regional/State level so it can identify inaccurate data and target
data correction in PCS as part of the transition process to the new Integrated
Compliance Information System. Once these activities are complete, the Office
of Water will determine a long-term strategy based on data availability and
resources, which should assist in developing pretreatment results-based measures.
The Office of Water stated that it was making progress in accordance with
schedules to finalize the various, still outstanding documents reported in the
finding. It is also currently developing its Strategic Plan for the coming
triennium. The PER effort will help the office evaluate whether or not the
resources allocated to implementing the pretreatment program are sufficient.
Based on the information, appropriate action would be taken.
The Office of Water also noted that other EPA and Regional offices that
participate in the pretreatment program and related activities plan their own
strategic resource evaluations and may recognize their own priorities.
We commend the Office of Water for issuing the Local Limits Development
Guidance, one of the documents which had been outstanding during our review.
We revised our recommendations to request the milestones for completion of
other actions and for quarterly progress reports to keep us apprised of actions not
completed within 90 days of report issuance.
While Headquarters may not directly determine Regional resource levels, it does
have powerful, indirect influence. Regional staff told us that their offices usually
take the lead from Headquarters when determining the resources to allocate to a
program. If Headquarters places less emphasis on a program, the Regions will
follow.
27

-------
28

-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
National Results Based on TRI Data
The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (i.e., TRI) is a database that contains
information on releases of toxic substances submitted by certain industry groups under
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
Facilities that report to TRI must: (1) fit a specific standard industrial classification
category; (2) have 10 or more full-time employee equivalents; and (3) manufacture or
process designated pounds of listed chemicals during the calendar year except for certain
persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals. The TRI list for 2001 included more than
600 chemicals and 30 chemical categories. We did not conduct an overall test of
reliability of the TRI data system. Therefore, we do not express, an opinion on TRI data
reliability in general.
In order to develop the national trends reported in Chapter 2, we obtained data from the
Computer Specialist/Database Administrator of the TRI Division who provided us with
two files based on TRI data contained within Envirofacts from industries identified by
their 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification codes associated with the original
industries reporting to TRI. The two sets of data included POTW transfer information
from these industries, one for the reporting years of 1991 through 2001 and the other
from 1987 to 2001. This information was initially used to identify general trends in
industrial transfers of pollutants to POTWs. Using EPA's Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model, we developed trends in the risk associated with the pollutants
transferred to POTWs since 1987 and for pollutants added since 1995. Pollutants that
had been delisted were not included in our calculations. Removal coefficients for POTW
removal rates were identified and applied to each of the listed TRI chemicals. The oral
ingestion toxicity weight was obtained and the related risk was calculated.
Case Study Review
To assess the impact of industrial user discharges to POTWs and the difference in how
POTWs oversee their industrial users, we prepared case studies of 10 POTWs. Before
selecting individual POTWs, we selected States and Regions with the highest transfers of
pollutants to POTWs. Using TRI, we identified the top 10 industries in the nation
transferring pollutants to POTWs. We identified the top five States in the nation in
pounds of pollutants transferred to POTWs and number of industrial users.
Our 10 case study POTWs included 6 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and
29

-------
4 without. We selected POTWs with approved programs by size as we defined based on
plant flow in millions of gallons per day.
Large: Over 10 millions of gallons
Medium: 5-10 millions of gallons
Small: Less than 5 millions of gallons
POTWs without approved programs would be small because regulations require those
with a design flow of greater than 5 millions of gallons and that receive industrial waste
to have an approved pretreatment program. We also selected some POTWs based on
Regional recommendations. The following table identifies our selected POTWs.
Selected POTWs with
Approved Pretreatment Programs
POTWs
POTW Size
State
Authorization?
Region
Brenham, Texas
Small
Yes
6
San Marcos, Texas
Medium
Yes
6
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commission - New Jersey
Large
Yes
2
Greensburg, Indiana
Small
No
5
Orangetown, New York
Medium
No
2
Indianapolis, Indiana
Large
No
5
Selected POTWs without
Approved Pretreatment Programs
POTW
POTW Size
State
Authorization?
Region
Hutchinson Minnesota
Small
Yes
5
Northfield, Minnesota
Small
Yes
5
Delphi, Indiana
Small
No
5
Hobart, New York
Small
No
2
Differences in POTW Pretreatment Programs
To determine the differences in how POTWs with and without approved pretreatment
programs oversee their industrial users, we used a combination of questionnaires and site
visits. We mailed questionnaires to nine POTWs with and nine without approved
pretreatment programs. Three POTWs from both categories were selected from Regions
2, 5, and 6. POTWs with approved programs were selected from EPA's PCS, which
designates a POTWs pretreatment program status. POTWs without approved programs
were randomly selected from various documents prepared by State agencies that had
30

-------
Categorical Industrial Users discharging into their systems.
We developed our questionnaire using EPA's 1999 Introduction to the National
Pretreatment Program, Chapter 4, as a model for how an approved pretreatment program
should be administered. Our model included the following elements of a pretreatment
program:
Industrial user identification,
Local limits,
Control mechanism used (permits, etc.),
Inspection & sampling,
Enforcement, and
Reporting.
Six of the nine POTWs (66 percent) from both the approved programs as well as non-
approved program categories responded to our questionnaire. We obtained information
during our site-visits from interviews with plant officials. We reviewed NPDES permits
of the 10 POTWs visited to determine pretreatment program requirements.
The following table identifies the POTWs (listed by size) that completed our
questionnaire:
POTWs with
Approved Pretreatment Programs
POTW
Size
State
Authorization?
Region
Chemung County, New York
Large
No
2
Racine, Wisconsin
Large
Yes
5
Jamestown, New York
Medium
No
2
Wooster, Ohio
Medium
Yes
5
Sulphur Springs, Texas
Medium
Yes
6
Sapulpa, Oklahoma
Small
Yes
6
POTWs without
Approved Pretreatment Programs
POTW
Size
State
Authorization?
Region
Rouses Point, New York
Small
No
2
Herkimer, New York
Small
No
2
Maple Shade, New Jersey
Small
Yes
2
Shelby, Ohio
Small
Yes
5
Shiner, Texas
Small
Yes
6
Taylor, Texas
Small
Yes
6
To assess Regional/State oversight of pretreatment programs, we sent two-part
31

-------
questionnaires to all 10 EPA Regions and 6 selected States: Indiana, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Texas. Part A of the questionnaire requested information
on resources, priorities, data systems, training, and suggestions for program
improvement, while Part B requested information on Regional/State oversight of towns
that do not have approved pretreatment programs. We used Chapter 4 of EPA's 1999
Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program as a model of how a Control
Authority should administer an approved pretreatment program. All 10 Regions and 6
States responded to Part A. For Part B, all the eight Regions that act as a Control
Authorities responded. Regions 4 stated they do not have this responsibility. Region 7
stated that even though they are technically the Control Authority of Kansas, the State
performs all the functions under a memorandum of understanding; therefore, a response
from the Region to Part B was not provided. All the five States that act as Control
Authorities responded; New York stated they do not do so.
Program Measures
To assess the Office of Water's efforts to develop program measures, we interviewed
EPA Headquarters and Regional staff, reviewed current and past GPRA measures, and
reviewed contractor reports evaluating established and proposed measures.
Program Maintenance and Future Needs
In evaluating how well EPA is maintaining pretreatment program gains and addressing
future needs, we used criteria from GPRA, the 2002 President's Management Agenda,
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program, and EPA.
EPA's 1999 Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, Chapter 2, provided a
description of the roles and responsibilities of EPA, States, POTWs, and industrial users
in implementing the pretreatment program.
To assess program maintenance, we sent questionnaires regarding resources, priorities,
and program needs to all the Regions and six States, all of which responded. We also
interviewed pretreatment staff at Regions 1, 2, 5, and 6, and selected State agencies and
POTWs.
32

-------
Appendix B
Basic Pretreatment Program Elements
Identifying Industrial Users
As part of program development and maintenance, POTWs are required to identify and
locate all industrial users that might be subject to the pretreatment program. POTWs
must know who is discharging and what is being discharged into the sewer systems so
that adequate control procedures can be implemented. POTWs must classify their
industrial users (e.g., significant or categorical industrial user) so that appropriate
regulations are applied. TRI now reports specifically on transfers of metals to POTWs,
which makes it useful to Agency, State, and POTW staff, and it is available on-line.
Details on issues related to identify industrial users are in Chapter 3.
Local Limits
To protect its operations and ensure that its discharges comply with State and Federal
requirements, a POTW will develop specific discharge limits for its local industrial or
commercial facilities. Eighty-three percent of the POTWs with an approved program had
developed approved local limits compared to 60 percent of the POTWs without approved
programs. The 60 percent represents all the POTWs that had pretreatment program
requirements included in their NPDES permits by State agencies.
Permits
Pretreatment regulations require that significant industrial users be controlled by an
individual permit or other equivalent individual control mechanism, which will include
specific discharge limits, and should be enforceable when not followed. Permits are
transferable with restrictions. All our sampled 12 POTWs with approved programs
issued individual permits to significant industrial users, while only 50 percent of the
POTWs without approved programs issued permits. State Agencies issued individual
permits or Section 308 enforcement letters for POTWs without approved programs. In
some instances, such as in Minnesota, the State agency issued permits to categorical
industrial users while the POTW issued permits to other significant industrial users.
None of the POTWs without pretreatment programs that issued permits stated their
permits were transferable, while 6 of the 12 POTWs with approved programs stated their
permits were.
Inspection and Sampling
Inspections and sampling provide a means of verifying that the industrial user is
following its permit conditions. Documentation to support enforcement actions can be
obtained during inspections. Pretreatment regulations require POTWs with approved
33

-------
pretreatment programs to inspect and sample significant industrial users annually at a
minimum. There are no inspection and sampling requirements for POTWs without
approved pretreatment programs. However, we asked the POTWs without approved
programs how often they inspect and sample for comparison purposes. All the POTWs
with approved programs said they sampled and inspected at least annually. All the
POTWs without approved programs said they inspected their industrial users but only 70
percent described formal, annual inspection programs. Only 50 percent said they
sampled on an annual schedule. Regional offices and State agencies will act as control
authorities for POTWs without approved pretreatment programs, but not all the Regions
and States were able to carry out inspection and sampling responsibilities due to the large
universe of significant industrial users spread out over a State and limited staffing.
Enforcement
Enforcement Response Plans establish a framework for POTWs to investigate and
respond to instances of industrial user noncompliance in a timely, fair, and consistent
manner, and are required for POTWs with approved programs. Eleven of the 12 POTWs
with approved pretreatment programs stated that they had approved Enforcement
Response Plans, while the remaining one said its plan was under modification. We
reviewed annual pretreatment reports to determine whether POTWs were escalating
enforcement actions (e.g., administrative orders, fines, etc.). We found that the two
large-sized POTWs (with approved programs) showed evidence of escalating
enforcement but our medium to small-sized POTWs varied in their efforts. POTWs
without approved programs are not required to develop Enforcement Response Plans and
may not have authority to take formal enforcement actions. This issue is discussed in
Chapter 3. Examples are in Appendix D.
Reporting
Annual pretreatment reports should include at a minimum: (1) a list of all the POTW's
industrial users; (2) a summary status of industrial user compliance; (3) a summary of
compliance and enforcement activities; (4) a summary of program changes; and (5) any
other relevant information requested by the approval authority. All the POTWs with
approved programs stated that they submit annual pretreatment reports. We were able to
obtain most of the reports over a 10-year period for the six POTWs with approved
programs visited and found the reports contained the minimum required information.
Seven of the POTWs without approved programs stated they also submit annual
pretreatment reports. We do not know what information was contained in all these
reports. However, we did review annual pretreatment reports from two Minnesota
POTWs without approved programs and found these reports as complete as those for
POTWs with approved programs.
34

-------
Appendix C
Oversight of Industrial Users by POTWs
Without Approved EPA Pretreatment Programs
(With State Pretreatment Programs)
POTWs
with State
Programs
Identify
Industrial
Users
Approved
Local
Limits
Control
Mechanism
Inspect
SlUs
Sample
SlUs
PT
Report
Receiving
Water on
303(d) List
Herkimer,
New York *
Y
Y
Permit
Annual
Weekly
Y
Y
Rouses Point,
New York
Y
Y
Permit
Semi-
annual
Not at all
Y
Y
Hutchinson,
Minnesota
Y
Y
Permit
Qtrly
Annual
Y
N
Northfield,
Minnesota
Y
Y
Permit
Varies,
more than
annual
Varies,
more than
annual
Y
N
Shiner,
Texas
Y
Y
Sewer Use
Ordinance
Semi-
annual
Semi-
annual
Y
N
Taylor,
Texas
Y
Y
Sewer Use
Ordinance
Annual
Only if
User fails
self-sample
N
N
(No Alternative State Programs)
POTWs
Without State
Program
Identify
Industrial
Users
Approved
Local
Limits
Control
Mechanism
Inspect
SlUs
Sample
SlUs
PT
Report
Receiving
Water on
303(d) List
Maple Shade,
New Jersey *
Y
N
Permit
Semi-
annual
Annual
Y
Y
Hobart,
New York *
N
N
Developing
Sewer Use
Ordinance
No formal
process
No sample
Y
Y
Delphi,
Indiana *
N
N
Sewer Use
Ordinance
"Not often
enough"
"Not often
enough"
N
Y
Shelby,
Ohio
Y
N
Sewer Use
Ordinance
No formal
process -
developing
in 2004
No formal
process -
developing
in 2004
N
Y
* Experienced pass through/interference within past 2 years of responding to questionnaire.
PT: Pretreatment
SIU: Significant Industrial User
35

-------
36

-------
Appendix D
Examples of Enforcement Efforts
Our review of enforcement efforts by our six selected POTWs with approved programs follows:
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, New Jersey, and Indianapolis, Indiana, the
two large-sized POTWs, issued a variety of enforcement actions from Notices of
Violation to formal orders and fined violators.
Orangetown, New York, a medium-sized POTW, issued at least one consent order
and a penalty from 1996 to 2002.
From 1994 to 2002, San Marcos, Texas, our other selected medium-sized POTW,
issued only Notices of Violation, a first level response to violations of exceeding
limits and reporting. No notices were issued during 1995, 1997, or 2000. The 2002
State audit cited deficiencies that prevented the POTW from identifying violations.
From 1993 to 2002, Greensburg, Indiana, a small-sized POTW, issued only one
Administrative Order but numerous Notices of Violation. Starting in 1996, the
POTW imposed fines on violators. The Greensburg pretreatment coordinator said
that fines made a difference in getting companies to comply.
From 1993 to 2002, the only enforcement actions issued by Brenham, Texas, a small-
sized POTW, were Notices of Violation during 1993, 1994, and 1998. The 2002
State audit cited deficiencies in the POTW's program, which prevented it from
identifying and taking more formal enforcement actions.
Two Minnesota POTWs without approved programs submitted annual pretreatment reports that
we reviewed to determine whether violations were identified and enforcement action taken.
•	Northfield reported violations from 1994 to 2001 but never reported taking any
enforcement action.
•	Hutchinson did not identify any violations from 1993 to 2001. In 1998, Hutchinson
did report that its biosolids had a "nickel problem," but the POTW did not identify
the problem as a violation. The POTW did indicate that a letter was written to the
industrial user responsible for the problem and the industrial user addressed the
problem.
The EPA Region 5 pretreatment coordinator stated that Northfield should be addressing
violations with enforcement actions. However, the POTW's role in taking enforcement actions
is not clearly stated in its NPDES permit. Even though Minnesota has been delegated for
37

-------
administering the pretreatment program since 1979, it lacks state pretreatment regulations that
could require a non-approved POTW to take enforcement. Minnesota was working on these
regulations during our visit in 2003.
38

-------
Appendix E
Gaps in Industrial User Oversight

Pretreatment Program Activity
State/
Region
Identify
Industrial User
Permit or Enforceable
Document
Issued to SlUs
Annual
Inspection
of SlUs
Annual
Sample
Region 2
When information comes
to their attention
Section 308
enforcement letter
Inspect ClUs once
every 5 years. SlUs
suspected of pass
through/interference
as resources allow
Sample 7-10
ClUs annually
(includes
approved)
New Jersey
Ongoing process
Individual industrial
user permit
Annual inspections of
SlUs
Annual samples
of SlUs
New York
Not a control authority. Re
NPDES permit. Gap: Thos
universe of 70 have mini-p
quires POTWs to develop "
e POTWs not under mini-p
'etreatment program.
mini-pretreatment" progr;
retreatment program. At
am through
out 45-50 of
Region 5
Defer to States
Rely on States
Rely on States
No sampling
Minnesota
Rarely - only if
information given to
State
Individual permit, ClUs
ClUs once every
5 years; SlUs "rarely"
"Rarely"
Ohio
Last update early 1990s;
every year, permit 10-15
new industrial users
Individual permit, all
SlUs
Inspect SlUs every
2 years, some
annually
Semiannually
Indiana
Last conducted in 1997
Individual permit
Inspections -
not routinely
"0"
Region 6
"No current updates"
Section 308
enforcement letter and
Administrative Order
"Rarely" - when pass
through/interference
suspected

Texas
Updated as information
becomes available
Section 308
enforcement letter
Inspect ClUs on
criteria and
compliance - inspect
other industrial users
as necessary
"As necessary"
CIU: Categorical Industrial User
SIU: Significant Industrial User
39

-------
40

-------
Appendix F
POTWIndustrial Pollutant Trends
POTWs With Approved Pretreatment Programs
POTW
Influent
Effluent
Sludge
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commission, New Jersey
Of 10 pollutants:
7 showed decreases
2 remained stable
1 showed no trend
Source: POTW records
Of 13 pollutants:
7 showed decreases
2 remained stable
4 showed no trend
Source: POTW records
Of 7 pollutants:
1	showed an increase
2	showed a decrease
1 remained stable
3	showed no trend
Source: POTW records
Orangetown, New York
1 pollutant remained
stable
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Reports
Of 14 pollutants:
5 remained stable
9 showed no trend
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Reports
Of 10 pollutants:
1 showed an increase
1 showed a decrease
8 showed no trend
Source: Annual Sludge
Report
Greensburg, Indiana
State does not require
POTW to submit data.
Of 9 pollutants:
5 remained stable
4 showed no trend
Source: PCS
PCS had insufficient data.
Indianapolis, Indiana
Belmont Plant -
Of 6 pollutants:
1	remained stable
5 showed no trend
Southport Plant -
Of 6 pollutants:
2	remained stable
4 showed no trend
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
Belmont Plant -
No data
Southport Plant -
Of 6 pollutants:
4 remained stable
2 showed no trend
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
Belmont Plant -
Of 3 pollutants:
2 showed decrease
1 showed no trend
Southport Plant -
No data
(POTWdoes not
land apply sludge)
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
Brenham, Texas
Of 19 pollutants:
1 remained stable
5 remained stable,
below detection levels
8 showed no trend
5 showed no trend,
below detection levels
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
No PCS data for industrial
pollutants
PCS had insufficient data
San Marcos, Texas
Of 19 pollutants:
12 remained stable
6 showed no trend
1 showed no tend,
below detection levels
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
No PCS data for industrial
pollutants
19 pollutants remained
stable below detection
levels
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
PCS had insufficient data
41

-------
POTWs Without Approved Pretreatment Programs
POTW
Influent
Effluent
Sludge
Hobart, New York
Not required to submit
data.
No PCS data for industrial
pollutants.
Does not land apply
sludge.
Delphi, Indiana
Not required to submit
data.
No PCS data for industrial
pollutants.
Does not land apply
sludge.
Hutchinson, Minnesota
Not enough samples to
determine a trend.
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
No trend for 3 industrial
pollutants.
Source: PCS
No trend for 4 industrial
pollutants.
Source: PCS
Northfield, Minnesota
Not enough samples to
determine a trend.
Source: Annual
Pretreatment Report
No trend for 5 industrial
pollutants.
Source: PCS
No trend for 4 industrial
pollutants.
Source: PCS
Industrial pollutants include metals and other pollutants discharged from a POTWs industrial users.
42

-------
Appendix G
Agency Response
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report:
"EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program"
FROM: Benjamin H. Grumbles
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO:	Dan Engelberg
Water Issues Product Line Director
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for your memorandum dated July 19, 2004, transmitting the draft report on
the subject evaluation, No. 2002-0933. We appreciate your careful and thoughtful study of the
National Pretreatment Program, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with the
following comments. Your findings highlight that Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
which administer Pretreatment Programs enjoy increased National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit compliance as well as environmental quality performance,
as opposed to POTWs without approved Pretreatment Programs. For example, 17 percent of the
surveyed POTWs with approved pretreatment programs experienced a pass through or
interference event, while in contrast 40 percent of the surveyed POTWs without a pretreatment
program experienced such an event. This could certainly serve as an indicator of the
environmental benefits derived from the pretreatment program.
The Office of Water is in the process of conducting the most comprehensive assessment
of the NPDES Program in its 30 year history, as part of the Permitting for Environmental Results
(PER) Strategy. The Program Integrity component of the PER Strategy, led by the Water
Permits Division, is designed to help address several of the recommendations in this draft report.
The PER Strategy focuses on the development and implementation of tools to continually assess
NPDES program performance, to obtain the necessary information for making adjustments to
program activities, to correct weaknesses, and to ensure continued success. As part of this effort,
EPA is compiling this information into EPA Regional and State Profiles which tell the NPDES
story.
I am pleased to respond to the draft report's specific recommendations. In addition, an
attachment to this memorandum provides some clarifications.
Recommendation 1 (Report Recommendation 3.1):
43

-------
Finalize [its] guidance on regulating industrial users discharging to a POTW without an
approved program.
We agree that guidance on tracking, overseeing, and controlling Significant industrial
users (SIUs) is important to ensure achievement of the Pretreatment Program's goals. From the
EPA Regional and State Profiles, we are gathering information on the diverse tools that States
and EPA Regional offices currently use to oversee and control these SIUs, including reporting
and tracking methods. We believe that the resulting toolbox, together with the development of
standardized accounting (e.g., number, location, and industrial sectors) of these SIUs will assist
future oversight in this area.
Recommendation 2 (Report Recommendation 3.2):
Identify Regions and States designated as control authorities that are not meeting minimum
pretreatment requirements to identify, inspect, sample, and enforce against (when appropriate)
all significant industrial users. If control authorities cannot meet the minimum standards,
delegate the responsibilities to POTWs in the NPDES permit if the POTW can carry out these
duties.
Via the PER Profiles, we are documenting information on the EPA Regions and States
Pretreatment Program oversight capabilities, as well as information regarding efficiencies and
innovations used to achieve workload efficiency and maintain a high level of productivity. EPA
does not delegate its own responsibilities with respect to pretreatment to POTWs. Rather, EPA
Regions (and, in some cases, States with authorized pretreatment programs) require POTWs to
undertake certain activities as a specific condition of the POTW's NPDES permit. These
requirements may include development of programs to control the contribution of industrial
users to the POTW by requiring compliance with EPA-promulgated pretreatment standards.
Such programs must include certain inspection and sampling requirements. In accordance with
the NPDES and Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 122 and 123, and 403, respectively), decisions
on individual POTW NPDES permitting requirements are the responsibility of the permitting
authority, determined on a case-by-case basis. The pretreatment regulations do not require EPA
to inspect or sample SIUs.
Recommendation 3 (Report Recommendation 3.3):
Require POTWs without approved programs that are conducting oversight responsibilities to
report violations and enforcement action taken to its control/approval authority.
NPDES regulations already address reporting of violations. 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii)
currently requires all POTWs, in their NPDES Permit Application, to provide to the permitting
authority a list of the SIUs and whether problems at the POTW have been attributed to an SIU in
the past four and one-half years. Where the EPA Region or State is the Control Authority, 40
CFR 403.12(g) requires industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards to provide
periodic reports on their compliance to the Control Authority and that the industrial user must
notify the Control Authority within 24 hours when sampling indicates a violation of the
applicable standards. In accordance with the NPDES and Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 122
and 123, and 403, respectively), decisions on individual POTW NPDES permitting requirements,
44

-------
particularly any increase in reporting beyond what is already imposed by the regulations, are the
responsibility of the permitting authority, determined on a case-by-case basis. Finally, POTWs
without approved programs would have regulatory authority to take enforcement action only if
authorization is provided by the State Codes.
Recommendation 4 (Report Recommendation 3.4):
Promote training opportunities to all POTWs with industrial users discharging to their systems
and offer on-line as well as classroom training.
We agree that training is key to maintaining Pretreatment Program knowledge. At our
July 2004 EPA-States Pretreatment Coordinators meeting, we discussed the need for improved
publicity of available training and venues, including improving our Water Permits Division
website. We have historically partnered with the Water Environment Federation for training
workshops, offered additional workshops through States offices, and also awarded a grant to the
California State University at Sacramento to develop a wastewater training series
(http://www.owp.csus.edu/vvastevvater.htm). Working with the Office of Compliance and the
National Enforcement Training Institute, we launched an online (and CD-ROM) training course
in July 2003 directed to inspectors, titled "CWA904: Clean Water Act/NPDES Computer-Based
Inspector Training," which contains units specific to the Pretreatment program
(http://vvvvvv.neti onl i ne.com/).
Recommendation 5 (Report Recommendation 4.1):
Develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for pretreatment result-based
measurements; determine the resources necessary to carry out the strategy; and gain the support
of other Agency, State, and POTW staff to carry out the strategy.
As your report notes, the Pretreatment Program has conducted several studies and
sponsored workgroups over the past decade for identifying performance-based measures for the
Pretreatment Program. Through the PER Process, we are compiling information regarding
current data systems used to store pretreatment data at the EPA Regional and State level. We
intend to use this information to identify inaccurate data and target data correction in PCS. Both
of these activities are crucial to facilitate migration and retention of data as we transition to the
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Once these efforts are complete, we believe
that we will be able to determine a long-term strategy based on data availability and resources,
which should ultimately assist us in developing pretreatment result-based measurements.
Recommendation 6 (Report Recommendation 4.2):
Develop measures on how industrial user operations have changed over the years.
As required by the Clean Water Act, the Office of Water annually reviews existing
effluent guidelines and pollutant discharges from industrial facilities and investigates a variety of
technological, economic, and environmental issues that ultimately will help determine the need
for, or scope of, a revision for or development of an effluent guideline or a categorical
pretreatment standard for a particular industrial category. To the extent that changes in industrial
user operations drive our findings from these reviews, those changes would inform our planning
45

-------
for the pretreatment program and the long-term strategy discussed in our response to
Recommendation 5.
Recommendation 7 (Report Recommendation 4.3):
Set milestones for finalizing the streamlining rule, local limits, and other applicable guidance.
The Local Limits Development Guidance was finalized and made available on the EPA
website in July 2004. As for the other efforts, we continue to make progress in accordance with
schedules established by the Office of Water.
Recommendation 8 (Report Recommendation 4.4):
Evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to enable it to make further reductions
in industrial waste transfers and risk. The additional funding should be requested in the next
funding cycle.
The Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, is currently developing its
Strategic Plan for the coming triennium. As Strategic Goals and associated tasks are determined,
some of which are identified in the discussion above, we will evaluate the resources necessary to
complete those actions. In addition, the PER effort will help us evaluate whether or not the
resources allocated to implementing the pretreatment program are sufficient. Based on the
information, we would take appropriate action.
cc: Nikki Tinsley
46

-------
Appendix H
Distribution
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (4101M)
Director, Office of Wastewater Management (4201M)
Director, Water Permits Division (4203M)
Associate Director, Water Permits Division (4203M)
Chief, Industrial Branch (4203M)
National Pretreatment Coordinator, Industrial Branch (4203M)
Agency Followup Official (the CFO) (271 OA)
Agency Audit Followup Coordinator (2724A)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301 A)
Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs (1101 A)
Audit Liaison, Office of Water (4101M)
Regional Administrators, Regions 2, 5, and 6
Inspector General (2410)
47

-------