Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

More Action Is Needed to 

Protect Water Resources 

From Unmonitored 

Hazardous Chemicals

Report No. 14-P-0363 September 29, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Report Contributors: Tapati Bhattacharyya

Steve Hanna

Tina Lovingood

Roopa Mulchandani

Naomi Rowden

Brooke Shull

Olga Stein

Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OIG Office of Inspector General

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

WET Whole Effluent Toxicity

Cover photo: Stickney Water Reclamation Plant, Cicero, Illinois. (EPA OIG photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program? 

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA, Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Report Suggestions
 

 14-P-0363

September 29, 2014

Why We Did This Review

We evaluated the effectiveness of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) programs in 

preventing and addressing 

contamination of surface water 

from hazardous chemicals

passing through publicly owned 

treatment works (hereafter 

“sewage treatment plants”). 

Hazardous wastes, regulated by 

the EPA, may be harmful to 

human health or the environment. 

Sewage treatment plants receive 

permits, from the EPA or states,

for discharges to surface waters

that establish pollutant monitoring 

requirements. However, 

hazardous chemicals discharged 

to sewers are not regulated under 

EPA hazardous waste regulations.

Rather, they are regulated under 

the Clean Water Act, which

focuses on a list of 126 priority 

pollutants that does not include 

many hazardous chemicals.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goals or 

cross-agency strategies:

 Protecting America’s waters.

 Ensuring the safety of 

chemicals and preventing 

pollution.

 Protecting human health and 

the environment by enforcing 

laws and assuring 

compliance.

Send all inquiries to our public 

affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or 

visit www.epa.gov/oig. 

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ 

20140929-14-P-0363.pdf

 

More Action Is Needed to Protect Water Resources 

From Unmonitored Hazardous Chemicals

 What We Found

Management controls put in place by the EPA to 

regulate and control hazardous chemical

discharges from sewage treatment plants to 

water resources have limited effectiveness. The 

EPA regulates hazardous chemical discharges to 

and from sewage treatment plants, but these 

regulations are not effective in controlling the discharge of hundreds of

hazardous chemicals to surface waters such as lakes and streams. Sewage 

treatment plant staff do not monitor for hazardous chemicals discharged by 

industrial users. This is due to a general regulatory focus on the priority 

pollutants list that has not been updated since 1981, limited monitoring 

requirements, limited coordination between EPA offices, a lack of tracking 

hazardous waste notifications required for submittal by industrial users, or a 

lack of knowledge of discharges reported by industrial users under the Toxics 

Release Inventory. Except for EPA Region 9, sewage treatment plant permits 

generally include very few monitoring requirements or effluent limits, which can 

limit enforcement actions.

The EPA developed whole effluent toxicity test results as a mechanism to 

identify toxic chemicals such as hazardous discharges to sewage treatment 

plants. However, these are not required for all permits, and are not tracked by 

the EPA to verify that sewage treatment plants are reporting results as 

required. Moreover, exceedances of chemical limits in permits and toxicity 

tests do not trigger notification to enforcement programs. Consequently, the 

EPA may not be aware of chemical discharge or toxicity exceedances that 

should be addressed to minimize potentially harmful contamination of water 

resources.

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA develop a format for sharing annual Toxics 

Release Inventory data, develop a list of chemicals beyond the priority 

pollutants list for inclusion in permits, confirm compliance with the hazardous 

waste notification requirement, and track required submittals of toxicity tests

and violations. The agency suggested a change to one recommendation, 

which the OIG accepted. All recommendations are resolved.

 Noteworthy Achievements

The EPA has designed the Discharge Monitoring Report Pollutant Loading 

Tool to provide access to surface water discharge and other data. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

EPA does not have 

mechanisms to address 

discharge of hazardous 

chemicals into water 

resources.
September 29, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: More Action Is Needed to Protect Water Resources From 

Unmonitored Hazardous Chemicals

Report No. 14-P-0363

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator

Office of Water

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The EPA office having primary jurisdiction over the issues evaluated in this report is the Office of 

Water’s Office of Wastewater Management.

Action Required

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report, because you agreed to all 

recommendations and provided corrective actions and completion dates that meet the intent of the 

recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and open with corrective actions ongoing. 

Should you choose to provide a response to this final report, we will post your response on the OIG’s 

public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your 

response as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want 

to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for 

redaction or removal along with corresponding justification. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
More Action Is Needed to Protect Water Resources 14-P-0363

From Unmonitored Hazardous Chemicals

Table of Contents

Chapters

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

Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1

Background................................................................................................ 1

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 6

Prior Evaluation Coverage ......................................................................... 7

2 EPA Has Not Taken Actions to Address Discharges of Hundreds of

Hazardous Chemicals From Sewage Treatment Plants.................................... 8

EPA Does Not Clearly Identify and Regulate Hazardous

 Chemical Discharges From Sewage Treatment Plants ....................... 8

Sewage Treatment Plants Monitor for Few Toxic Chemicals ..................... 11

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 18

Recommendations..................................................................................... 18

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation ...................................................... 19

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 20

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report................................................................... 21

B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 26
14-P-0363 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose 

The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) programs in preventing and 

addressing contamination of surface water from hazardous wastes passing through 

publicly owned treatment works (POTWs – hereafter also referred to as sewage 

treatment plants1). This included examining the EPA’s role and oversight of 

hazardous chemical2discharges to sewage treatment plants, and determining the 

effectiveness of the EPA’s management controls in regulating hazardous chemical

discharges from sewage treatment plants to surface water. We asked the following 

questions: 

 Does the EPA regulate hazardous chemical discharges to and from sewage 

treatment plants?

 Do sewage treatment plants monitor discharges for hazardous chemicals?

 Has the EPA taken actions to address discharges of hazardous chemicals

to and from sewage treatment plants? 

Background

Hazardous waste has properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a 

harmful effect on human health and the environment. Hazardous wastes are 

regulated by the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA). RCRA Subtitle C regulations address the generation, transportation, and 

treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes. However, under the RCRA 

domestic sewage exclusion, hazardous wastes discharged to sewage treatment 

 

1 The EPA defines a POTW as a treatment works owned by a state or municipality. This definition includes systems 

used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. 

In their technical comments on the draft report, the EPA states that the term publicly owned treatment works “is 

specifically defined at 40 CFR 403.3(q) and section 212 of CWA as a treatment works which is owned by a State or 

municipality. This term specifically includes the sewers, pipes, and conveyance system if and only if they convey 

wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant.” They also point out that NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 do not 

contain the term “sewage treatment plant.” We use the term “sewage treatment plant” in this report in place of 

“publicly owned treatment works” because we believe it is more understandable to a non-technical reader.

2 The term “hazardous chemical” is used in this report to refer to chemicals that, if managed under the EPA 

hazardous waste program, would be considered hazardous waste. Because hazardous waste discharged to sewage 

treatment plants is no longer considered hazardous waste, this term is used minimally in this report.
14-P-0363 2

plants are not regulated by RCRA once they enter the sewer. Rather, they are 

regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The CWA was passed in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and 

biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The goals of the CWA are to eliminate 

the introduction of pollutants into the nation’s waters and to achieve fishable and 

swimmable water quality. The CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) program represents one of the key components established to 

accomplish the goals of the CWA. This program requires that direct dischargers3

to surface waters such as streams, lakes, and oceans obtain an NPDES4permit 

(hereafter “discharge permit”).

A sewage treatment plant is generally designed to treat typical household waste, 

biodegradable commercial waste, and biodegradable industrial waste. However, 

all users may also discharge toxic or non-conventional pollutants that the sewage 

treatment plant is neither designed for nor able to remove. To ensure the goals of 

the CWA are met, industrial and commercial users are required to comply with 

pretreatment standards. Sewage treatment plants that discharge to the waters of 

the United States must obtain a discharge permit. These permits include 

requirements for discharge monitoring for specific chemicals, monitoring 

frequency, effluent limits, and discharge toxicity tests. The sewage treatment 

plant regulates discharges of industrial users through the CWA pretreatment 

program. The CWA established the National Pretreatment Program to address 

discharges from industrial users to sewage treatment plants. Figure 1 (next page) 

illustrates the discharges of the industrial users to the sewage treatment plant, and 

discharges of the sewage treatment plant to surface waters, and also identifies 

some permitting and reporting requirements.

 

EPA guidance defines pretreatment as “The reduction of the amount of pollutants, 

the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties 

in wastewater before or in lieu of discharging, or otherwise introducing, such 

pollutants into a POTW.” EPA guidance from 2004 states that, as part of their 

implementation of the industrial pretreatment program, municipal officials should 

ensure that industrial users control and properly manage their hazardous waste.

This guidance further states that hazardous wastes discharged to sewers are 

“subject to the CWA, must be reported to the POTW, and should meet all 

applicable categorical and local discharge limits.” 

 

3 According to the EPA, a direct discharger is “A point source that discharges a pollutant(s) to waters of the United 

States, such as streams, lakes, or oceans,” and includes sewage treatment plants. EPA considers indirect dischargers 

“facilities that discharge their wastewaters to a POTW.”

4 According to the EPA, the NPDES is the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, 

monitoring, and enforcing discharge permits from point sources to waters of the United States, and imposing and 

enforcing pretreatment requirements under the CWA. In this report, we use the term “discharge permit” instead of 

“NPDES permit” except in direct quotes.
14-P-0363 3

The general pretreatment regulations establish responsibilities among federal, 

state, and local government; industry; and the public to implement pretreatment 

standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with sewage 

treatment plant treatment processes or that can contaminate sewage sludge. The 

pretreatment program focuses on 126 priority pollutants with defined test 

methods. According to EPA regulations5, all major sewage treatment plants 

(sewage treatment plants with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one 

million gallons per day) and sewage treatment plants with approved or developing 

pretreatment programs are required to submit the results of a monitoring scan for 

a modified list of the priority pollutants at least once every 5 years when the 

sewage treatment plant’s permit is renewed.

Thirty six states have an approved State Pretreatment Program.

 

5 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(A) and (B).
14-P-0363 4

Figure 1: Diagram of industrial discharges to and from sewage treatment plants 

Source: OIG analysis.

The EPA’s 1986 Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works clarified that the basis of the domestic sewage 

exclusion is not that hazardous wastes discharged to sewer are rendered harmless, 

but rather that sufficient regulatory controls existed through the CWA 

pretreatment program. The report emphasized four recommendations:

1. Additional research, data collection, and analysis are necessary to fill 

information gaps on sources and quantities of hazardous wastes, their fate 

and effects in sewage treatment systems and the environment, and the 

design of any additional regulatory controls which might be necessary. 
14-P-0363 5

2. Improvements could be made to standards and pretreatment controls of 

hazardous wastes discharges to sewage treatment plants.

3. EPA should utilize existing water programs to improve control of 

hazardous wastes discharged to sewage treatment plants. 

4. RCRA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act, and the Clean Air Act should be considered along with the 

CWA to regulate hazardous waste discharges to sewage treatment plants 

if the studies in recommendation 1 indicate problems. 

The EPA developed regulations6in accordance with the 1986 Report to Congress, 

“to improve control of hazardous wastes introduced into POTWs under the 

Domestic Sewage Exclusion.” These regulations included various restrictions on 

discharges by industrial users to sewage treatment plants as well as various 

permitting and reporting requirements for industrial users and sewage treatment 

plants. These regulations also included a notification provision:

7

“The Industrial 

User shall notify the POTW, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division 

Director, and State hazardous waste authorities in writing of any discharge into 

the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous 

waste under 40 CFR part 261.” An industrial user is required to submit a one-time 

notification for discharges of more than 15kg of hazardous waste in any month, or 

any amount of acute hazardous waste8. If the discharge exceeds 100kg in any 

month, the notification should include the hazardous constituents, the constituent 

mass, and an estimate of the discharge for the next 12 months.

Information on some hazardous chemical discharges to sewage treatment plants is 

available from the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Information on 

discharges from sewage treatment plants is available from the EPA’s Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool. The TRI program tracks the 

management of certain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to human health 

and the environment. U.S. facilities in different industry sectors must report 

annually how much of each chemical is released to the environment and/or 

managed through recycling, energy recovery and treatment. A “release” of a 

chemical means that it is emitted to the air or water, or placed in some type of 

land disposal. In general, chemicals covered by the TRI Program are those that 

cause chronic or acute human health effects or significant adverse environmental 

effects. The TRI Program currently covers 683 chemicals and chemical categories 

including many, but not all, hazardous chemicals9. TRI filers are required to 

 

6 Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 142, July, 24, 1990.

7 40 CFR Part 403.12(p).

8 Acute hazardous waste contains such dangerous chemicals that it could pose a threat to human health and the 

environment even when properly managed.

9 TRI chemicals also include many chemicals not listed as hazardous waste.
14-P-0363 6

report the chemicals that are released or transferred from their facility. The 

information submitted by facilities is compiled in the TRI.

According to the EPA, the DMR Pollutant Loading Tool10 is designed to 

determine “who is discharging, what pollutants they are discharging and how 

much, and where they are discharging.” Data are currently available for the years 

2007 through 2011. Individuals using the tool can identify sewage treatment 

plants using a name or partial name, and download data on toxic pollutant 

loadings for all sewage treatment plants for which data has been entered. 

The following offices are responsible for EPA programs related to the evaluation 

of hazardous discharges by sewage treatment plants:

 The Office of Wastewater Management in the Office of Water oversees a 

range of programs contributing to the well-being of the nation’s waters 

and watersheds.

 The Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery in the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response implements RCRA.

 The Office of Information Analysis and Access in the Office of 

Environmental Information oversees the TRI program. 

 The Office of Civil Enforcement in the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance develops and prosecutes administrative civil and 

judicial cases and provides legal support for cases and investigations 

initiated in EPA regions.

 The Office of Compliance in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance manages the ICIS-NPDES data system and the DMR Pollutant 

Loading Tool.

 The Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training investigates 

violations of environmental laws and provides a broad range of technical 

and forensic services for civil and criminal investigative support and 

council on legal and policy matters.

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our work from March 2013 to June 2014. We conducted this 

performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

 

10 This tool is available to the public at http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/index.cfm. The tool uses DMR data from EPA's 

Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) 

to calculate pollutant discharge amounts.
14-P-0363 7

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 

We interviewed EPA headquarters staff, in the Office of Resource Conservation 

and Recovery in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the Toxics 

Release Inventory Program Division in the Office of Environmental Information, 

the Office of Wastewater Management in the Office of Water, and the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. We also interviewed regional 

Pretreatment Coordinators and staff in EPA Regions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 about specific 

discharges to and from sewage treatment plants. We analyzed regional data on 

specific discharges not tracked through the (NPDES) discharge permit monitoring 

using TRI and the Discharge Monitoring Report Pollutant Loading Tool.

To analyze hazardous chemical discharges to sewage treatment plants, we 

obtained quantitative data for discharges of hazardous chemicals to all sewage 

treatment plants reported in the 2011 EPA TRI. TRI data from 2011 were the 

most current data available when we performed the analyses. We identified the 

largest dischargers of hazardous chemicals from 2011 TRI data. We then used the 

TRI forms to identify the receiving sewage treatment plant, and determined if the 

hazardous chemicals were monitored in the sewage treatment plant’s (NPDES) 

discharge permit by analyzing permit data from the EPA’s Discharge Monitoring 

Report Pollutant Loading Tool.

We reviewed EPA programs, regulations, and guidance documents related to 

industrial dischargers and sewage treatment plants, the CWA and its 

implementing regulations, RCRA Codes and Domestic Sewage Exclusion, 

(NPDES) discharge permit and listed chemicals, and the EPA’s local limits 

guidance. We reviewed 2011 TRI hazardous chemical discharges to sewage 

treatment plants for the selected regions to determine whether 

EPA/regions/states/sewage treatment plant staff are aware of these discharges and 

if these are monitored and tracked. In our interviews with EPA and state staff in 

the offices mentioned above, we asked targeted questions regarding sewage 

treatment plant monitoring, priority pollutants, whole effluent toxicity tests, 

hazardous waste notification forms, and enforcement actions on exceedances.

Prior Evaluation Coverage 

The following EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports addressed issues 

related to pretreatment and TRI reporting: 

 Report No 2004-P-00030, EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National 

Pretreatment Program, issued September 28, 2004. 

 Report No 2004-P-00004, EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Industrial 

Reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory System, issued February 2, 2004.
14-P-0363 8

Chapter 2

EPA Has Not Taken Actions to Address 

Discharges of Hundreds of Hazardous Chemicals

From Sewage Treatment Plants

The EPA regulates discharges to and from sewage treatment plants, but these 

regulations are not effective in controlling the discharge of hundreds of hazardous 

chemicals to surface waters such as lakes and streams. Sewage treatment plant

staff do not monitor for hazardous chemicals discharged by industrial users. This

is the result of factors we observed, including a general regulatory focus on the 

priority pollutants list that has not been updated since 1981, limited monitoring 

requirements, limited coordination between EPA offices, a lack of tracking 

hazardous waste notifications required for submittal by industrial users, or a lack 

of awareness of discharges reported by industrial users under the Toxics Release 

Inventory. Except for EPA Region 9, sewage treatment plant permits generally 

include very few monitoring requirements, which can limit enforcement actions.

Whole effluent toxicity tests were developed by the EPA as a mechanism to 

identify toxic chemicals such as hazardous waste. However, these toxicity tests

are not be required for all permits, and are not tracked by the EPA to verify that 

sewage treatment plants are reporting results as required. Moreover, exceedances 

of chemical limits in permits and toxicity tests do not trigger notification to 

enforcement programs. Consequently, the EPA may not be aware of exceedances 

that should be addressed to minimize potentially harmful contamination of water 

resources.

EPA Does Not Clearly Identify and Regulate Hazardous Chemical 

Discharges From Sewage Treatment Plants

Priority Pollutants List Not Updated Since 1981

As a result of a suit filed by several environmental groups against the EPA in 

1975, the EPA agreed to regulate the discharge of 65 categories of pollutants 

comprising 126 priority pollutants from 21 industrial categories. Despite changes 

in the list of regulated industrial categories and the number of pollutants 

discharged, the EPA has not updated the list of 126 priority pollutants since 1981. 

Hundreds of RCRA Hazardous Chemicals are Not Listed as Clean 

Water Act Priority Pollutants

Figure 2 compares the RCRA hazardous chemicals with those on the CWA 

priority pollutants list. There are 83 RCRA hazardous chemicals that are also 

included on the CWA priority pollutants list. However, there still remain about 

300 RCRA hazardous chemicals not included on the CWA priority pollutants list. 
14-P-0363 9

This illustrates the large number of RCRA hazardous chemicals not monitored by 

sewage treatment plants in their discharge permits, including many acute 

hazardous wastes such as pesticides, metals and organic solvents. 

Figure 2: RCRA hazardous chemicals overlap with CWA priority pollutants listed 

chemicals11

Source: OIG analysis.

Agency Staff Uncertain About Regulating Beyond 33-Year Old Clean 

Water Act Priority Pollutants

The CWA gives the EPA authority to regulate “any pollutant” through a discharge 

permit. At the same time, the CWA incorporates the priority pollutants list into 

law and requires that effluent limitations be promulgated for the chemicals on the 

list. This has created a focus on the CWA priority pollutants list for discharge 

permits.

Some EPA staff, including enforcement staff, stated that the EPA has the 

authority to regulate any chemical necessary to achieve water quality standards. 

However, other staff within the EPA and states expressed different opinions about 

regulating chemicals beyond the list of priority pollutants. For example:

 Monitoring for specific chemicals by a sewage treatment plant is not 

required because the chemicals are not on the list of priority pollutants.

 Monitoring for specific chemicals is not required because the chemicals 

are not on the state list of chemicals identified for monitoring.

 

11 The number of RCRA hazardous waste chemicals in this diagram includes chemicals specifically listed by EPA as 

hazardous wastes or acute hazardous wastes.
14-P-0363 10

 Chemicals cannot be in a discharge permit if they are not on the list of 

priority pollutants. 

 Discharge permits are designed to primarily regulate chemicals on the list, 

although programs do have the authority to regulate beyond the list.

 Sewage treatment plants probably focus on priority pollutants because the 

state and EPA focuses on them.

According to the CWA, discharge permits may be issued for a term of up to 5 

years. According to EPA staff, as part of the renewal application process, sewage 

treatment plants screen for the 126 priority pollutants. Based on the data 

submitted, the permit writer then determines whether there is a reasonable 

potential for any of the pollutants to impact the water quality of the receiving 

water body. Only those pollutants identified as a concern are put in the permit 

either with limits or for monitoring only. Thus, discharge permits remain more 

focused on the priority pollutants list than on the CWA’s broader authority to 

regulate any pollutant that impairs water quality. As a result, other chemical 

discharges not included on the priority pollutants list, such as many RCRA 

hazardous wastes, are not monitored. Lack of monitoring or limits for these 

chemicals may result in contamination of surface waters.

Industrial Users’ Hazardous Waste Discharge Reports May Not Have 

Been Submitted as Required

Under the general pretreatment regulations, industrial users are required to notify 

the sewage treatment plant, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division 

Director, and state hazardous waste authorities in writing of any discharge into the 

sewage treatment plant of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be 

a hazardous waste. This refers to RCRA hazardous wastes. However, when we 

asked EPA staff about these notifications, there was a general lack of awareness 

of the requirement.

During interviews with EPA staff in headquarters, and Regions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, as 

well as state staff, we asked if the hazardous waste notifications had been 

submitted as required and if they were tracked. We received various responses, 

including: 

 EPA regional and sewage treatment plant staff stated that the discharges 

are not considered hazardous waste so this notification was not required. 

 One EPA region believed that based on information available through the 

pretreatment program, the notification did not have to be submitted. The 

region also stated that failure to notify, or to discharge hazardous wastes 

would be met with enforcement action, and that is the deterrent.
14-P-0363 11

 The pretreatment coordinator of another EPA region noted that he had 

seen the notification forms some time ago and that they perform annual 

archives of the sewage treatment plant files.

 Two states in one EPA region with authorized state programs informed us 

that the discharger files the hazardous waste discharge notification. 

However, one of the states indicated the notifications do not go to the 

region, but rather to the state hazardous waste office and the sewage 

treatment plant.

 One EPA region was unfamiliar with the notification requirements and 

had not seen notifications from industrial users for discharging hazardous 

waste to sewage treatment plants.

In the 1990 final rule that established the notification requirement, the EPA noted 

that “There is currently no regulatory requirement that industrial users report the 

discharge of all hazardous wastes to sewers.” The final rule further stated that the 

information provided by the hazardous waste notification “is needed for the 

ultimate development by POTWs of controls to prevent pass through and 

interference.” In addition, the rule indicated the agency was considering the 

development of a database of notification information that would make the 

information available in a usable format for interested parties. Based on our 

interviews with the EPA and states, the notification is not providing information 

to the sewage treatment plants as intended. Not only is there no database of the 

information, we found that no compilation of the notification forms was available 

in the regions and states we interviewed. Further, there is a general lack of 

knowledge of the requirement, and no reliance upon or use of the notifications by 

the sewage treatment plants to manage the discharge of hazardous wastes.

Sewage Treatment Plants Monitor for Few Toxic Chemicals 

Number of Chemicals Monitored by EPA Regions Varies Widely

According to EPA staff, while sewage treatment plants are required to perform a 

monitoring scan for all 126 CWA priority pollutants once every 5 years, the EPA 

does not require that all 126 priority pollutants be included on a sewage treatment 

plant’s DMR. Analysis of DMR data reported to the EPA reveals large regional 

differences in the number of chemicals12 monitored and reported on the DMR. 

Sewage treatment plant discharge permits within Region 9 require monitoring for 

many more toxic chemicals as compared to other regions. For example acrolein, 

which is an acute RCRA hazardous waste and is also a priority pollutant, is 

monitored by a total of 194 sewage treatment plants nationwide. Of these sewage 

treatment plants, 193 are in Region 9. Region 9 stated that monitoring can assist 

 

12 These are chemicals for which the EPA has developed a toxicity weighting factor in the Discharge Monitoring 

Report Pollutant Loading Tool, which includes many hazardous waste chemicals.
14-P-0363 12

with identifying chemicals that need a limit set during the next discharge permit 

term. 

The extent of the disparity of regional discharge monitoring requirements and 

reporting is illustrated in Figure 3. Region 9’s states require an average of more 

than 104 chemicals/sewage treatment plant, while other regions require an 

average of fewer than four chemicals/sewage treatment plant. 

Figure 3: Number of toxic chemicals monitored per sewage treatment 

plant by EPA region

Source: OIG analysis of data from the EPA's DMR Pollutant Loading Tool.

Lack of Data in Discharge Permits Can Hamper Enforcement

Enforcement actions against a sewage treatment plant due to pass through of 

chemicals from the sewage treatment plant into the receiving water body can be 

taken when there is a violation of any requirement of the sewage treatment plant’s

discharge permit. According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 40 CFR 

§403.3(p), “The term Pass Through means a Discharge which exits the POTW

into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in 

conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a 

violation of any requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit (including an 

increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).” As a result, enforcement 

action relies on pollutants and limits documented in a discharge permit. Without 

monitoring or limits in place, certain pollutants may be discharged by the sewage 

treatment plant and potentially harm human health and the environment.
14-P-0363 13

Region 9 staff did not have an explanation for the additional monitoring 

performed by sewage treatment plants in their region. We did find examples of 

additional monitoring of chemicals by sewage treatment plants outside of Region 

9 states, but the monitoring results were not included in the DMRs. Staff in one 

EPA region stated that information on chemicals not reported in the DMRs are

available in annual sewage treatment plant reports. However, including 

monitoring data in discharge permits, as Region 9 does, provides regulators with 

the ability to readily identify chemicals in need of discharge limits and identify 

and enforce pass through violations. Further, the discharge permits for Region 9 

states’ sewage treatment plants include more hazardous chemicals than the 

sewage treatment plant discharge permits in other states.

Discharge Permit and Pretreatment Programs Do Not Always 

Coordinate

EPA regions directly implement discharge permit programs in the four states that 

have not received program authorization. EPA still retains oversight authority for 

states with authorized programs. Pretreatment programs may also be authorized to 

states; however some states have been authorized to implement the discharge

permit program but not the pretreatment program. In some cases, this has resulted 

in separate organizations managing the discharge permit and pretreatment 

programs. In these cases the pretreatment programs may not provide input to 

identify the chemicals that should be included for monitoring in the discharge 

permits.

EPA Office of Water staff stated that the pretreatment and discharge programs do 

not necessarily coordinate efforts during the discharge permit application review 

and issuance process. Staff in the Office of Water noted that the pretreatment 

coordinators do not appear to have the role they should during the permit writing 

process and acknowledged that there is an issue with coordinated efforts between 

the programs for permit quality review. As a result, the pretreatment program staff

may not have been included in determining which chemicals should be included 

in the sewage treatment plant discharge permits. This could result in the absence 

of pretreatment controls in the discharge permits, which impacts what is or is not 

being monitored for by sewage treatment plants in their discharge permits.

Pretreatment enforcement staff in one region specifically noted that they did not 

have the opportunity to review the draft discharge permits before they were 

issued.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Not Effectively Used for Monitoring and 

Enforcement

In the 1980s, the EPA recognized that some sewage treatment plant discharges 

remained toxic despite pretreatment programs which were designed to prevent 

pass through of specific chemicals. As a result, the EPA developed a control to 

reduce or eliminate toxic discharges based on whole effluent toxicity (WET) 
14-P-0363 14

testing. According to EPA regulations13, sewage treatment plants with flow rates 

equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, or sewage treatment plants 

with pretreatment program requirements, must submit three WET test results 

taken within a four and one-half year period prior to the date of the discharge 

permit application. EPA staff stated that WET test results are an integral tool in 

the assessment of water quality. When a WET test exceedance is encountered, the 

sewage treatment plant conducts a series of additional tests to identify the toxic 

pollutants and their source so pass through can be eliminated.

During our interviews, EPA staff repeatedly stated that the WET tests provide a 

suitable backup mechanism for identifying possible discharges of hazardous 

waste. However, according to data supplied by EPA14 we found that WET test 

reporting requirements and tracking of the results do not provide backup for 

possible discharges (Figure 4): 

 Not all sewage treatment plants are required to report– According to the 

EPA, during 2011 there were 14,241 active sewage treatment plants 

nationwide. However, only 4,399 (31 percent) of these were required to 

report WET test results. Reporting was not required for 9,842 (69 percent) 

of the sewage treatment plants, which significantly restricts any use of the 

WET test as a backup mechanism to identify hazardous chemical

discharges. 

 Only about half of the sewage treatment plants report as required – Of the 

4,399 required to report, only 1,992 (45 percent) submitted WET test 

results. According to EPA staff, not all data may be entered into the data 

system. Therefore, more sewage treatment plants may have completed the 

required WET test, and 1,992 reflects those WET test submittals entered. 

 No system controls automatically track required submittals or exceedances

– According to EPA staff, there are no mechanisms for the automatic 

identification, tracking, and follow-up of required WET test submittals or 

exceedances. This limits the effectiveness of WET test in identifying 

releases of unidentified chemicals such as hazardous waste.

According to the Office of Water, the permitting authority determines the WET 

test requirements and frequency. Office of Water staff also acknowledged that 

monitoring is important as it improves the chances of identifying toxic chemicals 

such as hazardous wastes. The lack of regular reporting, tracking, and follow-up 

on WET test exceedances limits the ability of WET tests to provide a mechanism 

to identify discharges of hazardous chemicals that may not otherwise have been 

identified by the sewage treatment plant. 

 

13 40 CFR 122.21(j)

14 Data were from EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database.
14-P-0363 15

Figure 4: WET Test Results

Source: OIG analysis of data supplied by EPA staff.

Hazardous Chemical Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges Identified 

in TRI Not Monitored

Although TRI reporting does not include all industrial users discharging to 

sewage treatment plants or all hazardous chemicals, it is a source of data readily 

available to identify discharges of hazardous wastes to sewage treatment plants.

We used 201115 TRI data to query EPA regions, states, and/or sewage treatment 

plants to determine their awareness and management of TRI hazardous chemical 

discharges. We identified hazardous chemicals discharged by TRI reporters to 

sewage treatment plants. We initially identified 731 discharges of hazardous 

chemicals, and narrowed this list down to 207 discharges by eliminating TRI 

reporters with small volume discharges. We found that sewage treatment plants 

monitor for few of the chemicals. Of the 207 discharges identified, only 28 

 

15 At the time of our analysis, data from 2011 were the most current available from TRI and the Discharge 

Monitoring Report Pollutant Loading Tool.
14-P-0363 16

(14 percent) were chemicals monitored on the sewage treatment plants’ discharge 

permits (Figure 5).

We further analyzed data for a small number of sewage treatment plants to 

examine reasons hazardous chemicals are not monitored. We selected eight 

sewage treatment plants for additional follow-up based on the high TRI discharge 

volume and number of TRI hazardous chemicals that were not monitored in their 

discharge permits. We had discussions with the EPA region, authorized state, 

and/or the sewage treatment plant to determine if they were aware of the TRI 

discharges and determine why the chemicals were not included in the discharge 

permits. We found the eight sewage treatment plants did monitor for 14 of the 50 

(28 percent) chemicals identified. However, the monitoring was not required by 

the sewage treatment plant discharge permits, and was not reported to EPA.

Figure 5: TRI hazardous waste chemicals present in permits

Source: OIG analysis of data from TRI and the EPA’s DMR Pollutant Loading Tool.
14-P-0363 17

More importantly, the eight sewage treatment plants did not monitor for 36 of the 

50 (72 percent) hazardous chemicals identified, which included some acute 

hazardous chemicals. We received a range of responses for the sewage treatment 

plants’ lack of monitoring, including:

 Monitoring of the chemicals was not necessary because the chemicals in 

question should be metabolized and rendered harmless in the sewage 

treatment process.

 Monitoring of the chemicals was not required because the chemicals had 

been monitored in past years and the discharges were inconsequential. In 

some cases this was between 7 and 24 years ago.

 No response for why specific chemicals were not monitored.

 Chemicals were not monitored because they were not on the list of 

priority pollutants or a state list.

 Data were submitted on an annual report to the state.

 Discharges from the sewage treatment plant were not monitored because 

the influent from the industrial users was monitored. 

These responses indicate that sewage treatment plants are not always monitoring

chemical discharges, which could result in their release to the environment and 

impair appropriate enforcement. The sewage treatment plants did not routinely 

review the TRI data to ensure complete knowledge of the discharges from their 

respective industrial users. Although there is no requirement that sewage 

treatment plants use TRI data, we believe these data could provide a useful 

resource. Discharge permit writers, pretreatment authorities and sewage treatment 

plants could utilize TRI data to enhance their knowledge of all industrial user 

discharges. This would help ensure that permits accurately represent known 

discharges, mitigating the risk of potential release of these chemicals into the 

environment.

Exceedances in Discharge Monitoring Reports Do Not Automatically 

Trigger Follow-up

Although sewage treatment plants report annual monitoring data in Discharge 

Monitoring Reports, there is no automatic trigger in EPA information systems to 

notify enforcement staff of chemical exceedances. According to the EPA, to 

identify exceedances in violation of discharge permit limits, an exceedance report 

from the Discharge Monitoring Report must be manually generated. Thus, 

enforcement and oversight of chemical exceedances rely on the individual review 

of exceedance reports by states or the EPA. As a result, exceedances of discharge 

permit limits may not be identified or reviewed. This could result in the potential 

undetected discharge of chemicals beyond their defined maximum levels. 
14-P-0363 18

Conclusions

Management controls put into place by the EPA to regulate and control hazardous 

chemical discharges from sewage treatment plants to water resources are not 

always effective. According to interviews with the EPA’s enforcement and 

permitting staff, states and sewage treatment plant operators, all parties are not 

always aware of all hazardous chemical discharges flowing into and out of the 

sewage treatment plant. In addition, most hazardous chemical discharges we 

identified in selected sewage treatment plants are not monitored by the sewage 

treatment plants. As a result, sewage treatment plants may not be adequately 

treating wastewater entering their facilities and are at risk of discharging 

hazardous chemicals into receiving bodies of water such as rivers and streams.

These hazardous chemical discharges can have detrimental effects on human 

health and the environment. The EPA’s limited management controls for 

identifying and monitoring hazardous chemical discharges from sewage treatment 

plants do not support the CWA’s objective to maintain the integrity of the 

nation’s waters.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: 

1. Develop, in coordination with the Office of Environmental Information, a 

usable format for sharing TRI data on discharges sent to sewage treatment 

plants, with OW developing materials to explain the utility of TRI data to 

NPDES permit writers and pretreatment program personnel. This will 

include exploring options for an online search tool to more easily identify 

TRI discharges to specific sewage treatment plants.

2. Develop, in coordination with EPA regions, a list of chemicals beyond the 

priority pollutants appropriate for inclusion among the chemicals subject 

to discharge permits. This may include:

a. Review of TRI-reported discharges to sewage treatment plants. 

Initial review could focus on RCRA hazardous chemicals reported 

in TRI.

b. Review of chemicals monitored nationwide in sewage treatment 

plant discharge permits, especially chemicals monitored by 

Region 9.

c. Review of chemical monitoring data already collected by sewage 

treatment plants but not included in discharge permits.

d. Discussion with the Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery for suggested hazardous chemicals. 
14-P-0363 19

e. Development of mechanisms that ensure discharge and 

pretreatment programs coordinate during discharge permit writing. 

3. Confirm, in coordination with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance and EPA regions, that sewage treatment plants and their 

industrial users are aware of and comply with the 40 CFR 403.12(p) 

requirement that industrial users submit hazardous waste notifications.

4. Develop, in coordination with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, mechanisms to:

a. Improve sewage treatment plant compliance with permit terms that 

require submission of WET monitoring results to the permitting 

authority. 

b. Facilitate the use of monitoring data to track facilities that have 

violated chemical or WET permit exceedance requirements.

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation

The agency agreed with recommendations 2, 3, and 4. They disagreed with 

recommendation 1 but suggested a minor revision which meets the intent of the 

recommendation. All recommendations are resolved. The agency provided 

corrective action plans with milestone dates for all recommendations. Based on 

the agency’s response, all recommendations are open with corrective actions 

underway. The Agency provided the planned completion date of 9/30/15 for all 

recommendations. Appendix A contains the agency’s response to our draft report 

and planned actions to address our recommendations. We reviewed the agency’s

technical comments and made revisions to the report as appropriate.
14-P-0363 20

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 18 Develop, in coordination with the Office of Environmental 

Information, a usable format for sharing TRI data on 

discharges sent to sewage treatment plants, with OW 

developing materials to explain the utility of TRI data to 

NPDES permit writers and pretreatment program personnel. 

This will include exploring options for an online search tool to 

more easily identify TRI discharges to specific sewage 

treatment plants. 

O Assistant 

Administrator 

for Water

09/30/15

2 18 Develop, in coordination with EPA regions, a list of 

chemicals beyond the priority pollutants appropriate for 

inclusion among the chemicals subject to discharge permits. 

This may include:

O Assistant 

Administrator 

for Water

09/30/15

a. Review of TRI-reported discharges to sewage 

treatment plants. Initial review could focus on 

RCRA hazardous chemicals reported in TRI.

b. Review of chemicals monitored nationwide in 

sewage treatment plant discharge permits,

especially chemicals monitored by Region 9.

c. Review of chemical monitoring data already 

collected by sewage treatment plants but not 

included in discharge permits.

d. Discussion with the Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery for suggested

hazardous chemicals. 

e. Development of mechanisms that ensure 

discharge and pretreatment programs coordinate 

during discharge permit writing. 

3 19 Confirm, in coordination with the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance and EPA regions, that sewage 

treatment plants and their industrial users are aware of and 

comply with the 40 CFR 403.12(p) requirement that 

industrial users submit hazardous waste notifications.

O Assistant 

Administrator 

for Water

09/30/15

4 19 Develop, in coordination with the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, mechanisms to: 

a. Improve sewage treatment plant compliance with 

permit terms that require submission of WET 

monitoring results to the permitting authority. 

b. Facilitate the use of monitoring data to track 

facilities that have violated chemical or WET 

permit exceedance requirements. 

O Assistant 

Administrator 

for Water

09/30/15

O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
14-P-0363 21

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Report

(Dated July 28, 2014)

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report/Project No. OPE-FY13-0015

“More Action Is Needed to Protect Water Resources from Unmonitored 

Hazardous Waste,” dated June 27, 2014

FROM: Nancy K. Stoner

Acting Assistant Administrator

TO: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendation in the subject Draft 

Report. Following is a summary of the Agency’s overall position, along with its position on each 

of the Draft Report’s recommendations. For the Draft Report’s recommendations with which the 

agency agrees, we have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated 

completion dates. For the report recommendation with which the agency does not agree, we have 

explained our position and proposed an alternative to the recommendation. For your 

consideration, we have included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION

The EPA agrees that the effectiveness of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program and the National Pretreatment Program in preventing and addressing 

contamination of surface water from hazardous pollutants could be improved. We believe that 

the current regulatory structure provides for adequate controls to address hazardous pollutants, 

however, we welcome the IG’s recommendations on potential improvements to the 

implementation of these programs. While we agree that there is room for improvement, we have 

some concerns about some of the findings and one of the recommendations. 

Generally, OW is concerned that the draft report uses terminology in unconventional manners, 

inconsistent with the way the same terms are specifically defined in regulations, especially with 

respect to the term “hazardous waste”. This might have led the OIG to draw inaccurate 

conclusions. Similarly, readers of the report may also misinterpret both the findings and 

conclusions as they may rely on their knowledge and application of the regulatory definitions. 

We recommend that the OIG either use terms consistent with how they are defined in the 

regulations or clearly state how and why unconventional definitions are being used in the report. 
14-P-0363 22

“Hazardous waste” is a term of art under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

statute, and not a term used in the Clean Water Act (CWA). A RCRA regulation known as the 

“domestic sewage exclusion” says that waste mixed with sewage cannot be “solid waste,” see 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(1). Under RCRA, if a waste is not a “solid waste”, it cannot be a “hazardous 

waste.” It is therefore regulated by the CWA and not the RCRA. Thus, the use of the term 

"hazardous waste" in this CWA context is incorrect. Thus, the use of the term “hazardous 

waste” in the Draft Report’s title and throughout the draft report is incorrect. As an alternative, 

we suggest the terms “hazardous chemicals” or “hazardous pollutants” could be used. 

There are other terms that are misused. Please see the attached Technical Comments for detailed 

explanation of the apparent misuse of these terms. 

The OIG should update the report to clarify its use of these terms and phrases to reflect 

appropriate legal usage or explain why the OIG is using non-traditional use of legal terms.

OIG Response: The term “hazardous chemical” is used wherever possible, and the use of this 

term in referring to hazardous waste is footnoted. We have incorporated changes in 

terminology and explanatory footnotes as needed to address the issues cited in the technical 

comments.

Below is our consolidated response to the OIG Recommendations. Our response is separated 

into two sections: Recommendations to which we agree and identify our intended corrective 

action (OIG Recommendations 2, 3, and 4); and the Recommendation to which we disagree and 

provide a proposed alternative (Recommendation 1). 

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Agreements

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s) Estimated 

Completion by FY

2 Coordinate with EPA regions 

to develop suggested 

chemicals, beyond the priority

pollutants, for possible

inclusion in discharge permits.

This may include: 

a. Review of TRI-reported

discharges to sewage treatment 

plants. Initial review could focus 

on RCRA hazardous chemicals 

reported in TRI.

b. Review of chemicals 

monitored nationwide in sewage 

treatment plant discharge permits,

especially chemicals monitored

by Region 9.

OW will issue a memorandum to the regions 

and notify approved pretreatment states 

describing best practices for how the NPDES 

permits and the pretreatment programs 

coordinate. This memorandum will include 

information on how to access information 

reported by industries per 40 CFR 403.12 on 

discharges sent to POTWs, including TRI data 

and notifications of substances, which, if 

otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous 

waste. The best practices will describe how 

such data are used by NPDES permit writers 

and pretreatment program personnel to 

properly address such pollutants. 

09/30/2015
14-P-0363 23

c. Review of chemical 

monitoring data already

collected by sewage 

treatment plants but not

included in discharge

permits.

d. Discussion with the

Office of Resource

Conservation and Recovery 

for suggested hazardous 

waste chemicals.

e. Develop mechanisms that ensure

discharge and pretreatment 

programs coordinate during

discharge permit writing.

In addition, the OW will also review chemicals 

monitored by POTWs as reported on DMRs 

and available as in ICIS-NPDES. 

The OW will also engage in a discussion with 

staff from ORCR regarding suggested 

hazardous waste chemicals. 

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s) Estimated 

Completion by FY

3 Coordinate with Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance and EPA regions to 

confirm sewage treatment plants 

and industrial users are aware of 

and comply with the 40 CFR 

403.12(p) requirement that 

industrial users submit 

hazardous waste notifications.

OECA and OW will issue a joint 

memorandum to the regions and approved 

pretreatment states that discusses the 

requirement to submit notifications per 40 

CFR 403.12(p) and 40 CFR 403.12(j) of 

substances, which, if otherwise disposed 

of, would be a hazardous waste and to 

highlight the importance of the 

notifications in the pretreatment program. 

The memorandum will also emphasize the 

Control Authority’s responsibility to 

ensure industrial users are complying with 

this requirement.

09/30/2015

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended Corrective Action(s) Estimated 

Completion by FY

4 Coordinate with the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance to develop a 

mechanism to:

a. Improve sewage treatment 

plant compliance with permit 

terms that require 

submission of WET 

monitoring results to the 

permitting authority.

b. Facilitate the use of 

monitoring data to track 

a. 1.) OECA and OW will develop 

training materials that explain the 

importance of WET permit 

requirements and how to comply with 

them (e.g., doing required monitoring 

and completing DMRs).

2.) OECA will post the training 

materials on WET compliance to the 

website for the Local Governments 

Environmental Assistance Network

09/30/2015
14-P-0363 24

facilities that have violated 

chemical or WET permit 

exceedance requirements.

(EPA compliance assistance center, 

http://lgean.org/ ).

b. OECA will develop an ICIS-NPDES 

standard report for WET violations and 

announce the availability of the report 

to regions and states along with some 

explanation of how to utilize the 

reports for program implementation 

and oversight activities.

Disagreements

No. Recommendation Agency Explanation/Response Proposed Alternative 

1 Coordinate with the Office of 

Environmental Information to 

develop processes for annual 

distribution of TRI data to EPA 

regions and delegated state

programs.

TRI data are already publicly 

available. However, knowledge 

of how to easily access the data 

and how its information may 

be useful in program 

implementation may not be 

known.

Coordinate with the Office of 

Environmental Information 

[OEI] to develop a usable 

format for sharing TRI data 

on discharges sent to POTWs, 

with OW developing

materials to explain the utility 

of TRI data to NPDES permit 

writers and pretreatment 

program personnel. This will 

include exploring options for 

an online search tool to more 

easily identify TRI discharges 

to specific POTWs.

OIG Response: For Recommendation 1, the suggested revision meets the intent of the 

recommendation, and the report updated to reflect this. OW clarified that the estimated 

completion date for this recommendation is 09/30/2015. The Agency agreed to add additional 

corrective actions to address Recommendation 4, developing three additional reports by 

09/30/2015. These reports are (1) report that will show who is required to report WET and, if 

they are required report, who has not reported WET data, (2) a report on WET violations, and 

(3) all chemical exceedances including WET.
14-P-0363 25

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Deborah Nagle, 

Director of the Water Permit Division on (202) 564-1185 or Nagle.Deborah@epa.gov

or Marcus Zobrist, Chief of the Industrial Branch on (202) 564-8311 or 

Zobrist.Marcus@epa.gov.

Attachments

cc: Cynthia Giles, OECA

Renee Wynn, OEI
14-P-0363 26

Appendix B

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Water

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Information

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response