E  

 

 

 

 

   

       

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

EPA’s Handling of a 

Proposed Alternative Method 

for Measuring Oil and Grease 

in Wastewater Met 

Requirements But Controls 

Need to Be Strengthened 

Report No. 13-P-0317 July 11, 2013 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

 

 

Report Contributors: Rick Beusse 

 Erica Hauck

 Richard Jones 

Abbreviations 

ADP Action Development Process 

ATP Alternate Test Procedure 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EASB Engineering and Analytical Support Branch 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

MUR Methods Update Rule 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OST Office of Science and Technology 

OW Office of Water 

VCSB Voluntary Consensus Standards Body 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0317 

July 11, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Why We Did This Review 

We received a hotline 

complaint regarding the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) handling of a 

proposed alternative method for 

measuring oil and grease in 

wastewater, known as ASTM 

D7575. Our objective was to 

evaluate whether EPA, in 

reviewing ASTM D7575, 

adhered to applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, 

procedures, and guidance. 

The Clean Water Act requires 

EPA to establish and approve 

methods to measure pollutants 

in water and wastewater. 

Oil and grease is a regulated 

pollutant cited in hundreds of 

thousands of permits. 

Regulators determine 

compliance by using test 

methods approved by EPA. 

Oil and grease differs from 

many other pollutants in that it 

is a “method-defined analyte” – 

a pollutant defined solely by the 

method used to measure it. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA Goals or 

Cross-Cutting Strategies: 

 Advancing science, 

research, and 

technological innovation. 

 Protecting America’s 

waters. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130711-13-P-0317.pdf 

EPA’s Handling of a Proposed Alternative Method 

for Measuring Oil and Grease in Wastewater Met 

Requirements But Controls Need to Be Strengthened 

What We Found 

EPA’s handling of the proposed alternative method for measuring oil and grease 

in wastewater (ASTM D7575) adhered to applicable laws, regulations, policies, 

procedures, and guidance. 

However, during the course of our review, we identified management control 

weaknesses that need to be addressed. Because requests to consider alternative 

methods for method-defined analytes have been rare, EPA did not have 

established procedures for reviewing such methods. As such, the Agency faced 

unique challenges in reviewing ASTM D7575. The challenges pertained mainly to 

assessing comparability between ASTM D7575 and EPA’s current method for 

measuring oil and grease without established Agency procedures. Although we 

found that EPA took appropriate steps to make an informed decision on ASTM 

D7575, management control weaknesses contributed to confusion and delays, 

and fostered concerns among some stakeholders about fairness, transparency, 

and preferential treatment for the developer of ASTM D7575. Specific EPA 

management control weaknesses we identified include: 

	 EPA lacked a formal procedure for reviewing proposed methods like ASTM 

D7575, which delayed the review process due to differing views regarding 

data and statistical analyses needs. 

	 EPA lacked a clearly defined “cut-off” date for method submissions for the 

methods update rule, which fostered concerns about transparency, fairness, 

and preferential treatment. 

	 EPA’s communications with the method developer about pathways for 

method approval and other key matters were unclear, which led to confusion 

and misunderstandings about whether EPA was going to approve the 

method. 

If not addressed, these management control weaknesses have the potential to 

affect the timeliness of future EPA method reviews and perceptions of EPA’s 

fairness and transparency.

 Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water (1) establish a formal 

procedure for reviewing proposed methods for method-defined analytes, 

(2) establish procedures for designating official cut-off dates for future proposed 

methods update rules, and (3) clarify on the Agency’s website the different routes 

for method review and approval. The Agency generally agreed with our report 

and provided corrective actions and estimated completion dates that meet the 

intent of our recommendations. Also, the Office of Water issued a memorandum 

on June 6, 2013, establishing the procedures in recommendation 2; thus, we are 

closing this recommendation upon issuance of the final report. 
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

July 11, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: EPA’s Handling of a Proposed Alternative Method for Measuring Oil and Grease 

in Wastewater Met Requirements But Controls Need to Be Strengthened 

 Report No. 13-P-0317 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO:	 Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator 

Office of Water 

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

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report describes issues the OIG identified and 

makes recommendations to address these issues. The 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. 

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 planned completion dates that meet the intent of 

our recommendations. Recommendations 1 and 3 remain open with corrective actions ongoing. 

Please update the EPA’s Management Audit Tracking System as you complete the planned corrective 

actions for recommendations 1 and 3. Since the Office of Water already completed actions that meet the 

intent of recommendation 2, we are closing recommendation 2 upon issuance of this final report. 

Please notify my staff if there is a significant change in the agreed-to corrective actions. 

We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. We will post this report on our 

website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Assistant Inspector General 

for Program Evaluation Carolyn Copper at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov, or Director for 

Air and Research Evaluations Rick Beusse at (919) 541-5747 or beusse.rick@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

EPA’s Handling of a Proposed Alternative Method 13-P-0317 

for Measuring Oil and Grease in Wastewater Met 

Requirements But Controls Need to Be Strengthened 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

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

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

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

 Scope and Methodology .............................................................................. 4 

2 EPA Adhered to Applicable Laws and Regulations 

 But Needs a Framework and Procedures for Conducting 

Reviews of Methods Like ASTM D7575............................................................ 6
 

EPA’s Review of ASTM D7575 Adhered to Applicable Laws, 

Regulations, Policies, Procedures, and Guidance ................................ 6 

ASTM D7575 Posed Unique Challenges, and EPA Took 

OW Lacked Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Methods 

OW’s Method Review Process Lacked Other Important 

Appropriate Steps to Make an Informed Decision ................................. 8 

for Method-Defined Analytes ................................................................. 12 

Management Controls ........................................................................... 13 

Conclusions................................................................................................. 15 

Recommendations ...................................................................................... 15 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation............................................. 16 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits .............................. 17
 

Appendices 

A EPA’s Adherence to Applicable Laws, Regulations, 

Policies, and Guidance...................................................................................... 18
 

B Agency Comments on Draft Report ................................................................. 20 

C Distribution ......................................................................................................... 22
 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) received a hotline complaint concerning EPA’s handling of 

“ASTM D7575,” a proposed alternative method for measuring oil and grease in 

wastewater. In response to the allegations, we assessed whether EPA adhered to 

applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and guidance in reviewing 

ASTM D7575 as an alternative method1 for measuring oil and grease, and in 

issuing the proposed Methods Update Rule (MUR) and subsequent Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA). 

Background 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to establish and promulgate test 

procedures (i.e., methods) to measure pollutants regulated by CWA programs. 

This includes establishing methods for measuring pollutants in wastewater under 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. 

Under this program, point source2 discharges must meet the discharge limits for 

regulated pollutants as identified in their NPDES permits. To determine 

compliance, regulated pollutants must be measured using available methods 

approved by EPA. 

Oil and grease3 is a regulated wastewater pollutant that is included in hundreds of 

thousands of NPDES permits. However, oil and grease differs from many other 

wastewater pollutants in that oil and grease is a method-defined analyte. 

A method-defined analyte is an analyte (e.g., pollutant) that is defined solely by 

the method used to measure the amount of the analyte. In the case of oil and 

grease, measurement for regulatory purposes is dependent on the use of 

EPA Method 1664A. This method uses n-hexane as an extracting solvent for 

determining the amount of oil and grease in a wastewater sample. As such, the 

measurement of oil and grease depends on the use of n-hexane to extract oil and 

grease from the sample. 

1 We use the term “alternative method” to mean a method that could be used in lieu of, or as a replacement for, the
 

existing approved method for oil and grease.

2

 CWA Section 502(14) generally defines a point source as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, 

including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, 

concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be 

discharged.”

3

 “Oil and grease” is a singular category of pollutant that is regulated by the CWA. Although they may be different 

substances, oil and grease are regulated as one singular pollutant. 

13-P-0317 1 
 

 

 

 

Two Routes for Nationwide Approval of New Methods and 

Method Modifications 

The Office of Science and Technology (OST) within EPA’s Office of Water 

(OW) is responsible for reviewing and promulgating methods for measuring 

pollutants for CWA applications, including alternatives to existing methods. 

Specifically, OST’s Engineering and Analytical Support Branch (EASB) reviews 

proposed new methods and modifications to existing methods that are submitted 

for approval. If EASB finds that a method or modification meets certain criteria, 

it conditionally approves the method or modification. Methods that EASB 

conditionally approves must then be proposed and promulgated through the 

formal rulemaking process. Because promulgating individual methods separately 

would be very resource-intensive, EASB periodically4 combines numerous 

proposed methods and modifications into a proposed MUR. Once these rules are 

finalized, the approved methods are codified per the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) at 40 CFR Part 136 and can be used nationwide to determine compliance 

with NPDES permits. 

As shown in figure 1, there are two distinct routes through which a proposed new 

method or modification may be reviewed and approved by EPA in 40 CFR Part 136. 

 Figure 1: Routes of method review and approval 

Source: OIG analysis.
 

VCSB - Voluntary Consensus Standards Body
 

4

 According to EASB, methods update rules are promulgated approximately every 4 years. 

13-P-0317 2 
 

 

 

The first route is EPA’s Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) program. Under this 

program, method developers submit an application for a proposed new method or 

modification directly to EASB for nationwide use. The ATP program has 

established formal protocols for reviewing new methods and modifications 

submitted through this route. These protocols lay out specific requirements, such 

as validation studies that must be conducted for the method to be proposed by 

EPA in a MUR. 

The second route involves methods that are adopted by a voluntary consensus 

standards body (VCSB)5 such as ASTM International6 and Standard Methods.7 

VCSBs may submit methods and modifications they have adopted to EPA under 

the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995. The NTTAA requires EPA to adopt methods approved by 

VCSBs unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable laws or otherwise 

impractical. Methods submitted to EPA via either route (ATP or NTTAA) must 

be reviewed by EASB and, if appropriate, proposed and ultimately promulgated 

in a MUR. 

EPA’s Rulemaking and Review of Proposed Methods Are Governed 

by Multiple Statutes, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance 

Regardless of the route of approval used, there are several laws, regulations, and 

guidance – generally referred to as criteria – that govern EPA’s methods update 

rulemakings and review of proposed methods. These include the following: 

Table 1: Criteria governing EPA’s rulemaking process and review of proposed methods 

Criteria document Brief description 

Administrative Procedure Act This act lays out the general requirements for rulemakings for all federal 

agencies. This includes the publication of proposed rules in the Federal Register. 

Clean Water Act Section 304 (h) of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing 

test procedures for the measurement of pollutants under the NPDES program. 

40 CFR Part 136 40 CFR Part 136 describes EPA’s general guidelines for establishing test 

procedures for analysis and measurement of pollutants regulated under the 

NPDES program. It also lays out the application process to be followed by 

method developers when submitting an application to EPA under the CWA ATP 

program. 

EPA’s Action Development 

Process (ADP): Guidance for 

EPA Staff on Developing Quality 

Actions (revised March 2011) 

The ADP is a comprehensive framework to ensure that EPA develops quality 

actions, including rulemakings. Its intent is to ensure the use of quality 

information and an open process to support Agency actions. 

Source: OIG analysis. 

5

 A VCSB is a domestic or international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary
 

consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures. 6

 ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, was established in 1898, 

and provides a global forum for the development and publication of international voluntary consensus standards. 

ASTM has over 30,000 members from 150 countries.

7

 Standard Methods, like ASTM International, is a voluntary consensus standard body that regularly submits 

methods to OW for approval.
 

13-P-0317 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, the NTTAA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A-119 apply specifically to methods developed by VCSBs. These are 

summarized below. 

Table 2: Criteria applicable to methods developed by VCSBs 

Criteria document Brief description 

NTTAA Section 12(d) states that federal agencies shall use technical standards developed or 

adopted by VCSBs, unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. EPA has interpreted technical standards to include test methods. 

OMB Circular A-119 

(revised February 1998) 

This circular establishes policies for federal agencies in implementing the NTTAA. The 

circular states that agencies have discretion to decline to use a standard developed by 

a VCSB, if the agency determines that such standards are inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

Source: OIG analysis. 

EPA Reviewed Proposed Alternative Method ASTM D7575 During Its Most 

Recent Methods Update Rulemaking 

EPA reviewed ASTM D75758 as part of its most recent methods update 

rulemaking as an alternative method for oil and grease. EPA issued a proposed 

MUR in September 2010 that included numerous new methods and method 

modifications. In the proposed MUR, EPA stated that it was not planning to 

approve ASTM D7575 because it does not use n-hexane to extract oil and grease. 

However, after the proposed MUR was issued, EPA received additional 

information on ASTM D7575 and conducted additional review of the method. 

Subsequently, in December 2011, EPA issued a NODA to reconsider ASTM 

D7575 as an alternative method for oil and grease, and requested public comment 

on the method. EPA’s review and handling of ASTM D7575 is discussed in 

greater detail in chapter 2. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our review from April 2012 to March 2013. We conducted this 

performance review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

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

conclusions based on our review objectives. We believe that the evidence 

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

our review objective. 

To address our objective, we reviewed the proposed MUR, the NODA to 

reconsider ASTM D7575, the final MUR, and relevant information in the 

rulemaking docket. We also reviewed the analyses and studies conducted by the 

method developer and ASTM, as well as documents pertaining to EPA’s review 

8 We use the term “ASTM D7575” in this report to refer to the alternative method for oil and grease from its initial 

development through its adoption by ASTM. However, the method did not obtain the designation of ASTM D7575 

until it was adopted by ASTM in January 2010. 

13-P-0317 4 
 

 

of the method. We reviewed applicable statutes, regulations, policies, procedures, 

and guidance, including the following: 

 Clean Water Act (CWA) 

 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

 Administrative Procedure Act 

 40 CFR Part 136 – Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the 

Analysis of Pollutants 

 EPA’s Action Development Process (ADP) Guidance 

(revised March 2011) 

 Protocol for EPA Approval of Alternate Test Procedures for Organic and 

Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water (OW, March 1999) 

 Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and Inorganic 

Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water (OW, March 1999) 

We interviewed EPA OW personnel, including EASB staff and managers, 

Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water staff, OW’s senior regulatory 

manager, and OW’s Deputy Assistant Administrator. We also interviewed EPA’s 

standards executive (the Agency’s NTTAA expert), and staff and managers from 

EPA’s Office of General Counsel, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations, and Office of Policy. We also interviewed the complainant and 

reviewed documents, emails, and other materials provided. 

13-P-0317 5 
 

Chapter 2

EPA Adhered to Applicable Laws and Regulations 

But Needs a Framework and Procedures for 

Conducting Reviews of Methods Like ASTM D7575 

EPA’s review of ASTM D7575 and issuance of the proposed MUR and 

subsequent NODA adhered to applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, 

and guidance. However, during our review, we found management control 

weaknesses that need to be addressed. Specifically, EPA lacked a framework and 

procedures for reviewing alternative methods for method-defined analytes, such 

as ASTM D7575, which led to challenges in reviewing the method. The primary 

challenge EPA faced was in assessing the comparability of ASTM D7575 to the 

existing method for measuring oil and grease. EPA’s lack of established 

procedures stemmed from the fact that it generally had not considered approving 

proposed alternative methods for method-defined parameters in the past, and 

requests to do so had been very rare. Because of its inexperience in reviewing 

such methods, OW had to devise the review process for ASTM D7575 as it went 

along. We found that OW took appropriate steps to review ASTM D7575 and 

make an informed decision, despite the challenges it faced and its lack of 

procedures for reviewing such alternative methods. However, the lack of an 

established review framework, and other management control weaknesses, 

contributed to confusion and delays in the review process, and contributed to 

concerns from stakeholders regarding preferential treatment of ASTM D7575. 

If not addressed, these weaknesses have the potential to affect the timeliness of 

future EPA method reviews and perceptions of EPA’s fairness and transparency. 

EPA’s Review of ASTM D7575 Adhered to Applicable Laws, 

Regulations, Policies, Procedures, and Guidance 

EPA adhered to applicable statutes, regulations, policies, procedures, and 

guidance during its review of ASTM D7575. Specifically, we found that EPA 

adhered to the following in its review of ASTM D7575: 

 The Administrative Procedure Act 

 The CWA 

 40 CFR Part 136 

 EPA’s ADP: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions 

(revised March 2011) 

 The NTTAA 

 OMB Circular A-119 (revised February 1998) 

Appendix A provides details on EPA’s adherence to each of the above criteria 

during its review of ASTM D7575. 

13-P-0317 6 
 

Two key documents governing EPA’s actions in the MUR rulemaking and review 

of ASTM D7575 are the EPA’s ADP guidance and the NTTAA. EPA’s actions to 

adhere to the requirements of these two documents are discussed in detail below. 

Action Development Process Guidance 

The ADP provides guidance for properly categorizing the type and significance of 

EPA’s actions. This process is known as “tiering” the Agency action. The ADP 

also provides guidance for assembling workgroups and selecting the appropriate 

action for the desired outcome. In reviewing ASTM D7575, OW followed the 

ADP guidance related to these three areas. 

EPA tiered the MUR as a Tier 3 action, which we believe is an appropriate tier 

level for this action. Per the ADP, significant actions such as rulemakings are tiered 

according to multiple factors. These factors include the complexity of the action, 

the need for cross-agency input and senior leadership involvement, and potential 

impacts. Actions are designated as Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. Tier 1 actions are the 

most complex and have the greatest need for cross-agency input and senior 

leadership involvement, and the greatest potential impacts. According to the 

Director of the Regulatory Management Division in EPA’s Office of Policy, 

almost all MURs across the Agency are Tier 3 actions. Further, the Director said 

that NODAs are typically tiered the same as the adjoining rulemaking. Thus, it was 

acceptable for OW to tier the NODA for ASTM D7575 as a Tier 3 action because 

this was consistent with the tiering of the associated MUR. 

For Tier 3 rules, a workgroup is not required. However, it is required for actions 

tiered at higher levels (i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 2). Although not required by EPA’s 

ADP guidance, OW assembled an intra-agency workgroup to review both the 

MUR and NODA. The workgroup chair shared drafts of the proposed MUR, the 

NODA, and the final MUR with workgroup members for review and comment. 

Also, the decision to issue the NODA involved senior EPA leadership. The 

OW Deputy Assistant Administrator reviewed a couple of options pertaining to 

ASTM D7575 and selected the option he determined to be most appropriate. This 

is consistent with EPA’s ADP guidance. 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

The NTTAA requires EPA to use test methods adopted by VCSBs, such as 

ASTM D7575, unless the Agency determines that the method does not meet 

Agency requirements. EPA considered ASTM D7575 in accordance with the 

NTTAA. After ASTM approved the method, EPA staff reviewed the data from 

the ASTM studies. In particular, EPA focused on the assessments of 

comparability between ASTM D7575 and Method 1664A. Further, EPA spent 

13-P-0317 7 
 

 

considerable time and effort reviewing the method to determine whether it was 

practical and appropriate to approve the method. 

ASTM D7575 Posed Unique Challenges, and EPA Took Appropriate 

Steps to Make an Informed Decision 

The proposal of ASTM D7575 as an alternative method for oil and grease posed 

unique challenges to EPA because oil and grease, unlike most other pollutants, is 

a method-defined analyte. The measurement of oil and grease is dependent on the 

use of n-hexane to extract oil and grease from a sample. This is outlined in EPA 

Method 1664A. ASTM D7575, in contrast, does not use n-hexane. Instead, it uses 

an extracting membrane. Further, Method 1664A uses gravimetric measurement, 

whereas ASTM D7575 uses infrared absorption measurement to measure a 

sample. Thus, the two methods use different determinative techniques.9

 Because 

of these differences, the main challenge for EPA was to assess whether using 

ASTM D7575 to measure oil and grease in a sample would yield results 

comparable to using EPA Method 1664A. 

While EPA has a protocol10 for assessing comparability between methods for 

non-method-defined analytes, it does not have an established process to assess 

comparability for method-defined analytes. Prior to ASTM D7575, EPA’s 

informal practice had been generally to deny proposals for new or alternative 

methods for method-defined analytes based on different determinative techniques. 

Further, such requests were very rare. The only time that EPA had approved a 

new method for measuring oil and grease in wastewater was when the Agency 

had to change its former method because it used Freon as the extracting solvent. 

EPA had to discontinue using Freon under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. After conducting several comparability 

studies, EPA approved Method 1664A in 1999 for measuring oil and grease in 

wastewater. This changed the extracting solvent from Freon to n-hexane. 

However, ASTM D7575 appeared to have some advantages over EPA Method 

1664A that, in combination with additional data received after the proposed 

MUR, led EPA to reconsider its informal practice to deny such methods. For 

example, ASTM D7575 does not use n-hexane, which poses potential health risks, 

particularly at higher levels. Also, ASTM D7575 had potential to lower analytical 

costs to users. ASTM International also approved ASTM D7575. Under the 

provisions of the NTTAA, EPA is required to adopt methods approved by VCSBs 

like ASTM International, unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable 

laws or otherwise impractical. As such, after reviewing additional data, EPA 

decided to review ASTM D7575 to determine its viability as an alternative to 

EPA Method 1664A. Its viability hinged primarily on its comparability to Method 

9

 A determinative technique is defined as the way in which an analyte is identified and quantified.

10 Protocol for EPA Approval of Alternate Test Procedures Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in 

Wastewater and Drinking Water (EPA 821-B-98-002, March 1999). 

13-P-0317 8 
 

 

 

1664A – specifically, whether it would produce measurement results comparable 

to Method 1664A. Details concerning EPA’s review and assessment of ASTM 

D7575 are described below. 

EPA’s Review of ASTM D7575 Prior to Issuance of the Proposed MUR 

In April 2009, the company that initiated development of ASTM D7575 

(hereinafter, “the method developer”) sent an early version of the method to the 

ATP coordinator in EASB and asked him to review the method. The method 

developer did not submit an ATP application for formal evaluation under the ATP 

program. In an email response to the method developer, the ATP coordinator 

outlined several concerns with the draft method. He also stated that “multi-matrix, 

multi-lab full validation” would be required before EPA would consider 

approving the method. 

After this communication, the method developer began working with ASTM 

International to get the method adopted by the organization. In September 2009, 

the method developer submitted to EPA a summary report of its multi-laboratory 

validation study for D7575. The study was conducted for ASTM as part of the 

ASTM approval process. Soon after, the ATP coordinator asked to see all of the 

raw data from the study. Later that month, EPA requested that its independent 

contractor review the information provided on D7575 and the validation study. 

The contractor had concerns with the data, including that there was no raw data 

from the labs. The contractor agreed with the need for further testing of ASTM 

D7575. In January 2010, ASTM adopted D7575.11 

In March 2010, the EPA MUR workgroup was asked to review and comment on 

ASTM D7575. In response, several EPA regional staff expressed concerns. In 

particular, there were concerns with the comparability of ASTM D7575 to EPA 

Method 1664A. There were also concerns because oil and grease is an analyte 

defined by Method 1664A. EPA did not recommend ASTM D7575 for approval 

in the September 2010 proposed MUR because it does not use n-hexane as the 

extracting solvent. ASTM D7575 used a different extraction technique than EPA 

Method 1664A. 

EPA’s Review of ASTM D7575 After Issuance of the Proposed MUR 

Upon learning that ASTM D7575 was not going to be recommended for approval in 

the proposed MUR, the method developer contacted its senator’s office. According 

to documentation provided to EPA by the method developer, the method developer 

had been under the impression that EPA was going to recommend ASTM D7575 for 

approval in the proposed MUR. Staff from the senator’s office contacted EPA about 

its decision. A congressional liaison specialist in EPA’s Office of Congressional and 

Intergovernmental Relations told us that it is quite common for senators to contact 

11 ASTM sent a letter to EPA on September 21, 2010, formally requesting that the Agency consider ASTM D7575 

as an alternative method for determining oil and grease in wastewater. 

13-P-0317 9 
 

EPA on behalf of the interests of their constituents. He estimated that his office 

receives calls from members of Congress almost daily. Although a senator’s 

involvement on a specific issue may bring additional attention to that issue, it does 

not mean that preferential treatment occurred, according to the congressional liaison 

specialist. He said the senator’s staff were primarily concerned with whether method 

ASTM D7575 received a fair and thorough review by EPA. 

After the senator’s office contacted EPA, Agency managers and staff attended 

several meetings with the method developer, ASTM, and staff from the senator’s 

office. At these meetings, EPA staff discussed concerns they had with ASTM 

D7575, specifically with its comparability to Method 1664A. Some EPA staff, 

particularly the ATP coordinator, had concerns about whether the data from the 

ASTM studies showed that ASTM D7575 was comparable to Method 1664A. 

EPA requested that the method developer and ASTM provide more data on 

ASTM D7575, particularly assessments of comparability between ASTM D7575 

and Method 1664A. In October 2010, the method developer provided the 

following data to EASB: 

 Raw data from the single- and multi-lab studies conducted for ASTM 

approval 

 An expanded validation report 

 Comparability statistics from the single lab validation 

 Answers to EPA’s most recent questions 

An EPA contractor reviewed the method developer’s data and concluded that 

ASTM D7575 was not statistically comparable to EPA Method 1664A in most 

scenarios. EPA statisticians also reviewed the data and reached similar 

conclusions. 

In addition, EPA received and reviewed numerous public comments to the 

proposed MUR that pertained to ASTM D7575. One commenter submitted an 

analysis conducted by a statistician which concluded that ASTM D7575 

“is statistically equivalent” to Method 1664A. Another commenter submitted a 

report documenting the health risks posed by n-hexane, the solvent used in 

EPA Method 1664A. Also, the method developer submitted over 80 documents in 

its comments on the proposed rule. Most of these documents did not provide new 

data on ASTM D7575 beyond what was provided to EASB via email in 

October 2010. 

In June 2011, ASTM provided written responses to several EPA questions 

pertaining to technical issues and the statistical analyses conducted by the method 

developer and ASTM. In its written responses, ASTM made it clear that its 

intention was for D7575 to be an alternative method to EPA Method 1664A, 

with the same regulatory standing as Method 1664A. ASTM also stated that it 

disagreed with the EPA contractor’s statistical assessment. 

13-P-0317 10 
 

 

Despite the new information provided by the method developer and ASTM, 

EASB staff continued to have concerns about comparability of ASTM D7575 

with EPA Method 1664A. In particular, they were concerned with the breadth of 

matrices (types of wastewater samples) that had been tested. Thus, in June 2011, 

EASB requested that ASTM test ASTM D7575 in three additional matrices 

selected by EASB staff. According to the EASB branch chief, EPA told ASTM 

that EPA would consider issuing a NODA for ASTM D7575 if ASTM tested 

these additional matrices, pending positive results. ASTM subsequently tested the 

three additional matrices12 and issued a report to EPA in November 2011.13 In that 

report, ASTM concluded that the results for the new matrices demonstrated 

comparability between ASTM D7575 and Method 1664A. 

OW looked at the new matrices tested along with all other data submitted by the 

method developer and ASTM after the proposed MUR. Based on this information, 

OW determined that it was worthwhile to issue a NODA to reconsider ASTM 

D7575 and obtain public comment on the information obtained to date. 

EPA Issued NODA to Reconsider ASTM D7575 

On December 14, 2011, EPA published a NODA to reconsider ASTM D7575 as 

an alternative to Method 1664A. The NODA was based primarily on the new 

information from the method developer and ASTM. In the NODA, EPA did not 

state whether they would be approving ASTM D7575 as an alternative to 

Method 1664A (i.e., with the same regulatory standing). Rather, EPA stated that 

ASTM D7575 was a good “stand alone method.” EPA provided the following 

three reasons for reconsidering ASTM D7575: 

1.	 EPA’s analysis demonstrates ASTM D7575 is an acceptable stand-alone 

method for the measurement of oil and grease in wastewater, producing 

results “generally very close” to those obtained using EPA Method 1664A 

for the matrices tested. 

2.	 ASTM D7575 has advantages over 1664A, including that its membrane is 

a green technology (e.g., it uses a solventless extraction, there is no 

solvent waste, and no analyst exposure to solvent). 

3.	 ASTM D7575 may offer other advantages such as ease of analysis, 

reduced analysis time, and lower analytical costs. 

In the NODA, EPA solicited public comment on several topics. These included 

whether EPA should reconsider promulgating ASTM D7575 as an additional 

method for oil and grease, and provisions pertaining to side-by-side comparisons 

for permitting purposes. 

12 The three additional matrices that ASTM tested were from the following categories: a large refinery, a large food 

and restaurant complex, and a large chemical manufacturer. 13 Study Report from the Testing of Additional Industrial Wastewater Matrices in Support of ASTM Standard D7575 

for USEPA’s Reconsideration of this Method in the Forthcoming Method Update Rule (ASTM D19.06 

Subcommittee, November 2011). 

13-P-0317 11 
 

 

EPA Issued Final Decision to Not Approve ASTM D7575 on a 

Nationwide Basis 

On March 6, 2013, EPA issued a notice of final decision in the Federal Register, 

stating that it is not approving ASTM D7575 as an alternative method for oil and 

grease on a nationwide basis. According to the notice, this decision was based 

primarily on the fact that oil and grease is a method-defined analyte and 

comparability between ASTM D7575 and Method 1664A had not been 

established on a wide-scale basis. However, EPA stated that permittees could 

apply for limited use approval through the regional ATP coordinators to use 

ASTM D7575 for limited, specific uses. Such approval would require 

demonstrating comparability between ASTM D7575 and 1664A for the intended 

use by the permittee. Additionally, OW developed and provided guidance to the 

regional ATP coordinators for evaluating the comparability of ASTM D7575 to 

EPA Method 1664 for limited use approvals. This guidance was issued to the 

regions at the time the final decision was published in March 2013. 

OW Lacked Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Methods for 

Method-Defined Analytes 

The challenges posed by ASTM D7575 stemmed from the fact that EPA had not 

considered a new, VCSB-approved method for oil and grease in the past, and did 

not have a procedure in place for reviewing proposed methods for method-defined 

analytes. As such, EPA had no clearly defined data requirements or criteria to 

assess the comparability of ASTM D7575 and EPA Method 1664A. This resulted 

in confusion between the method developer and EPA. It also led to numerous 

formal and informal exchanges regarding data requirements and next steps. In the 

end, OW used the comparison studies done when EPA replaced Freon in 1999 as 

a general framework for reviewing ASTM D7575. However, an OW manager told 

us it is uncertain whether that is the best approach to use. 

OW managers told us they are uncertain about a one-size-fits-all approach to 

approving proposed methods for method-defined analytes. At the same time, 

they want to provide flexibility to method developers to foster technological 

advancements in measurement methods. OW managers realize that new methods 

may be improvements over existing methods. They also anticipate that EPA will 

get more requests of this nature in the future, particularly now that they have 

considered an alternative method for oil and grease that does not use n-hexane. 

OW’s protocol14 for reviewing new methods (for non-method-defined analytes) 

under the ATP program sets the expectation that the ATP and rulemaking 

processes can take a year or more to promulgate a major modification or a new 

technology. However, the Agency’s review of ASTM D7575 took more than 

14Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking 

Water (EPA 821-B-98-003, March 1999). 

13-P-0317 12 
 

 

 

 

 

3 years to complete. Much of this delay was due to the lack of a formal procedure 

for reviewing new methods for method-defined analytes, and the resulting 

confusion about what data and statistical analyses are required to assess 

comparability. An established framework and procedures for method-defined 

analytes that is communicated up front to the method developer and/or VCSB 

would better explain EPA’s expectations for data quality. It would also reduce the 

confusion around EPA’s data requirements. 

OW’s Method Review Process Lacked Other Important 

Management Controls 

In addition to the lack of procedures for reviewing alternative methods for 

method-defined analytes, we found that EPA’s method review process lacked 

other important management controls. Specifically, regarding EPA’s review of 

ASTM D7575: 

 EPA lacked a firm “cut-off” date for 

method submissions for the MUR, 

resulting in Agency staff and external 

stakeholders having different 

interpretations of a July 2009 

“pens down” memorandum.
 

 EPA did not clearly and consistently 

communicate with the method developer 

and ASTM regarding potential pathways 

for approval and other key matters. 

Ambiguous “Cut-off” Date for 

Methods Submissions 

In the most recent MUR rulemaking, OW
 

provided notice to methods developers as to when 

it would no longer accept additional proposed 

methods for consideration in the rulemaking. This
 

notification to stakeholders is known as the pens 

down memorandum. On July 20, 2009, the ATP 

coordinator sent a pens down memo, written by 

the former EASB branch chief, via email to a 

limited number of external stakeholders. The 

memo stated that: 

...Because all of us want these valuable 

revisions out for internal Agency review 

and subsequent public review, we are 

drafting the proposed rule with the 

methods and suggestions collected so far. 

“Pens Down” Memorandum 

We have received many helpful 

suggestions, insights, and products from 

Part 136 community members including 

ASTM International, the Standard Methods 

Committee, laboratory auditors, and 

method developers. We are now moving 

forward to incorporate the many 

improvements and revisions. Our scientists 

are assembling and writing the 

documentation required to publish 

proposed changes to the regulations at 

40 CFR Part 136. Publication in the 

Federal Register, and responding to public 

comment are part of the critical path to 

allow the 136 community to use these tools 

for compliance monitoring. 

Because all of us want these valuable 

revisions out for internal Agency review 

and subsequent public review, we are 

drafting the proposed rule with the methods 

and suggestions collected so far. 

Thus, you have no need to begin or rush 

development of a new laboratory study, or 

ongoing method-testing project. Meanwhile 

if you have a new method, you may ask to 

put it into the queue of methods in the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) alternate test procedure 

(ATP) programs. We remind developers 

that the flexibility at 40 CFR Part 136.6 to 

modify and use a Part 136 method has 

eliminated the previous need for EPA to 

review, under the ATP program, most 

modifications. In addition, the 1996 SDWA 

amendments allow use of methods for 

drinking water compliance monitoring 

without conducting the rulemaking 

required for CWA methods. 

13-P-0317 13 
 

 

 

Thus, you have no need to begin or rush development of a new laboratory 

study, or ongoing method-testing project. Meanwhile if you have a new 

method, you may ask to put it into the queue of methods in the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) alternate test 

procedure (ATP) programs.... 

OW’s memo did not clearly state whether a method must be fully approved by the 

date of the memo or whether the method could still be in review (i.e., not 

finalized). This resulted in ambiguity and differing perceptions of the meaning of 

the memo. The ATP coordinator said his interpretation was that the method 

submission process must have been completed by the memo date. However, the 

current EASB branch chief said that the memo meant if a method developer has 

not submitted a new method or started the approval process they should not 

bother doing so now. In her view, the memo did not mean that all data for a 

specific method had to be submitted by that date. 

The ATP coordinator and another method developer interpreted the pens down 

memo as an approval cut-off date. Thus, when Method D7575, which was 

adopted by ASTM almost 6 months after the cut-off date, was included in the 

proposed MUR, these stakeholders perceived this as preferential treatment. For 

example, the other method developer wrote to EPA stating that EPA should have 

also considered its method after the cut-off date, as EPA had done with ASTM 

D7575.15 The company said that EPA was not providing its proposed method 

with a “level playing field in comparison with other methods.” Further, the ATP 

coordinator stated that EPA continued to review ASTM D7575 past the 

pens down deadline but did not consider other methods. 

Processes for Communications With Stakeholders Need Improvement 

OW did not clearly and consistently communicate with the method developer and 

ASTM during its review of ASTM D7575. When the method developer first 

approached OW staff in April 2009, the Agency did not clearly explain that there 

were two distinct approval pathways: through EPA’s ATP process or through a 

VCSB. Further, this information had not been communicated on EPA’s public 

website. According to the EASB branch chief, EPA recognizes this issue and has 

recently clarified with ASTM International the two distinct pathways for 

obtaining approval. 

Following the method developer’s decision to seek approval through ASTM, 

EPA did not clearly explain to the method developer that communications from 

that point forward should be between EPA and ASTM, not between EPA and the 

method developer. EASB staff continued to communicate directly with the 

method developer throughout and following ASTM’s review of D7575. For 

15 The method submitted by this other method developer was not reviewed and conditionally approved by EPA until 

late June 2010, less than 3 months before the proposed MUR was published, whereas ASTM D7575 was adopted by 

ASTM in January 2010. 

13-P-0317 14 
 

example, the method developer continued to submit materials for EPA review 

after submitting them to ASTM. The method developer also believed that EASB 

staff had approved its validation study plans, which EASB staff have denied. 

EPA’s continued correspondence with the method developer led to confusion as 

to whether EPA was planning to recommend ASTM D7575 for approval. Based 

on our review of written communications between the method developer and 

EPA, EPA did not state that it was planning to recommend ASTM D7575 for 

approval. However, we identified one email the former EASB branch chief sent to 

the method developer that was open to interpretation. The method developer 

viewed this email as evidence that ASTM D7575 would be recommended in the 

proposed MUR. 

EPA’s ongoing communication with the method developer also contributed to the 

perception from some stakeholders that the method developer received 

preferential treatment. In our view, OW’s lack of controls governing its 

communications with external stakeholders contributed to this perception. 

Conclusions 

EPA’s review of ASTM D7575 adhered to applicable laws, regulations, policies, 

procedures, and guidance. Further, EPA took appropriate steps to address the 

challenges posed by ASTM D7575 and to make an informed decision, despite the 

lack of an established procedure for reviewing proposed new or alternative 

methods for method-defined analytes. Improved management controls are needed 

to ensure that EPA’s method reviews avoid perceptions of partiality and 

unfairness. Such controls would also ensure that reviews are completed in a more 

transparent, timely manner. The lack of a formal procedure for reviewing new 

methods for method-defined parameters, the lack of a clearly defined “cut-off” 

date for method submissions, and the failure to clearly communicate the two 

approval pathways played substantial roles in the issues observed. In our view, 

these management control weaknesses also have the potential to impact future 

EPA method reviews if not addressed. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: 

1.	 Establish a procedure for reviewing proposed methods for method-defined 

analytes. This procedure should provide a general framework for review 

and address, at a minimum, the following issues: 

	 Data to be submitted by the method developer or VCSB. 

	 Statistical tests or analyses to be conducted to determine 

comparability between the new proposed method and the existing 

approved method. 

13-P-0317 15 
 

 

2. Establish procedures for designating official cut-off dates for future 

proposed MURs, and include these procedures on OW’s website 

3. Clarify on EPA’s website OW’s procedures and communications policies 

regarding the two distinct routes through which new methods may be 

approved by EPA. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

OW generally agreed with our recommendations and provided a corrective action 

plan with milestone dates to address recommendations 1 and 3. OW’s proposed 

corrective actions and planned completion dates for recommendations 1 and 3 

meet the intent of our recommendations. These recommendations will remain 

open pending completion of the proposed corrective actions. 

For recommendation 2, OW issued a memorandum on June 6, 2013, that outlines 

procedures for establishing cut-off dates for future MUR rulemakings, including 

posting the cut-off dates on OW’s website at least 6 months before proposing a 

MUR. According to the memorandum, OW will also post an explanation on its 

website as to what the cut-off dates mean. This action meets the intent of 

recommendation 2. Therefore, we are closing recommendation 2 upon issuance 

of this report. 

No further EPA response to this report is required. Appendix B contains the 

Agency’s response to our draft report, including its planned actions for each 

recommendation. The Agency also provided technical comments on the draft 

report, which we have incorporated into our report as appropriate. 

13-P-0317 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 15 Establish a procedure for reviewing proposed 

methods for method-defined analytes. This 

procedure should provide a general framework for 

review and address, at a minimum, the following 

issues: 

 Data to be submitted by the method 

developer or VCSB. 

 Statistical tests or analyses to be conducted 

to determine comparability between the new 

proposed method and the existing approved 

method. 

O Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

12/31/13 

2 

3 

16 

16 

Establish procedures for designating official cut-off 

dates for future proposed MURs, and include these 

procedures on OW’s website. 

Clarify on EPA’s website OW’s procedures and 

communications policies regarding the two distinct 

routes through which new methods may be 

approved by EPA. 

C 

O 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

6/6/13 

9/30/13 

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 

13-P-0317 17 

1 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

EPA’s Adherence to Applicable Laws, Regulations, 

Policies, and Guidance 

Table A-1 below lists the statutes, regulations, policies, and guidance (i.e., criteria documents) 

that are applicable to EPA’s review and handling of ASTM D7575. The table provides a brief 

description of the applicable requirements for each criteria document and a description of the 

actions EPA took regarding those requirements. 

Table A-1: Summary of EPA actions taken to meet applicable requirements 

Key criteria Description of applicable criteria or requirements 

Description of actions regarding 

applicable requirements 

Administrative This act discusses the general requirements federal EPA published its September 2010 

Procedure Act agencies must follow for rulemakings. It states that 

agencies must provide notice of proposed rulemakings 

in the Federal Register. After this notice, the agency 

must provide the opportunity for public comment on the 

proposal. 

proposed MUR and December 2011 

NODA in the Federal Register. EPA 

provided periods of public comment for 

both. 

Clean Water Act Section 304(h) requires EPA to promulgate guidelines 

establishing test procedures for the measurement of 

pollutants regulated under the NPDES program 

(i.e., Section 402). 

EPA developed these guidelines, which 

are codified in 40 CFR Part 136. 

40 CFR 40 CFR Part 136 establishes guidelines for test Although D7575 was submitted under 

Part 136 procedures (methods) to be used in wastewater 

programs, specifically the NPDES program and its 

related applications, permits, and reports. It lists all the 

methods that have been approved and promulgated by 

EPA for use. 

Part 136 describes the application and approval 

process to be followed for methods submitted to the 

ATP program. The guidelines require comparability 

data to be submitted which show how the proposed 

method performs in comparison to an already-approved 

method. After the ATP coordinator reviews the 

proposed method, he or she is to recommend to the 

Administrator whether to accept or reject the method. 

Methods recommended for approval are to be 

published in the Federal Register for public comment, 

and subsequently a final decision on approval is to be 

made in the Federal Register. 

Part 136 does not discuss the review and approval of 

methods submitted to EPA via the NTTAA. 

the NTTAA, not the ATP program, 

EPA required the method developer 

and ASTM to submit comparability data 

as required by 40 CFR Part 136. EPA 

used those data to assess how ASTM 

D7575 performs in comparison to 

EPA Method 1664A. 

Further, EPA published the NODA in 

the Federal Register to obtain public 

comment on whether to reconsider 

ASTM D7575. 

13-P-0317 18 
 

 

Key criteria Description of applicable criteria or requirements 

Description of actions regarding 

applicable requirements 

EPA’s Action 

Development 

Process (ADP): 

Guidance for 

EPA Staff on 

Developing 

Quality Actions 

(revised March 

2011) 

Under the ADP, each new regulatory action is assigned 

a tier level that appropriately corresponds to the level of 

complexity, needed cross-Agency input, controversy/ 

visibility, and need for involvement by top-level 

managers. Actions are assigned as Tier 1, Tier 2, or 

Tier 3 actions. Tier 1 actions are the most complex, 

require the most cross-agency collaboration, and have 

the highest need for involvement by top-level 

managers. 

The ADP contains many specific requirements for 

actions that are tiered at more elevated levels 

(i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 2). These include forming 

intra-agency workgroups and developing options 

selections to present to senior officials in EPA. 

However, these are voluntary for Tier 3 actions. 

EPA tiered the MUR as a Tier 3 action. 

The NODA is also a Tier 3 action since 

it is an outgrowth of the MUR. 

EPA convened a workgroup for the 

MUR rulemaking, although this is not 

required for Tier 3 actions. 

National 

Technology 

Transfer and 

Advancement 

Act 

Per section 12(d) of the NTTAA, federal agencies shall 

use technical standards developed or adopted by 

VCSBs, unless doing so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

EPA assessed the viability of ASTM 

D7575 per the requirements of the 

NTTAA. It spent considerable effort in 

attempting to determine whether 

approving ASTM D7575 as an 

alternative for EPA Method 1664A 

would be practical, specifically by 

assessing comparability between the 

two methods. 

OMB Circular OMB Circular A-119 is OMB’s implementing guidance EPA spent considerable effort in trying 

A-119 (revised for the NTTAA for federal agencies. It states that to determine whether approving the use 

February 1998) agencies “must use voluntary consensus standards, 

both domestic and international, in its regulatory and 

procurement activities in lieu of government-unique 

standards, unless use of such standards would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. In all cases, your agency has the discretion 

to decline to use existing voluntary consensus 

standards if your agency determines that such 

standards are inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical.” 

of ASTM D7575 would be practical, 

specifically considering its comparability 

to EPA Method 1664A. Note that the 

OMB circular provides EPA discretion 

in declining the use of ASTM D7575 if it 

determines it is impractical. 

Source: OIG analysis. 

13-P-0317 19 
 

 

Appendix B 

Agency Comments on Draft Report 

May 15, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY12-0013 

“Results of Hotline Complaint Review Concerning EPA’s Handling of a Proposed 

Alternative Method for Measuring Oil and Grease in Wastewater,” dated March 

28, 2013 

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 recommendations in the subject report. 

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

report recommendations. For those report recommendations with which the Agency agrees, we 

have provided either high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the 

extent we can or reasons why we are unable to provide high-level intended corrective actions and 

estimated completion dates at this time. For your consideration, we have included a version of the 

report with our suggested edits and comments as an attachment to supplement this response. 

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION 

The Office of Water generally agrees with the draft report. We note that the objective as stated in 

the draft report was to “evaluate whether the EPA, in reviewing ASTM D7575, adhered to 

applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and guidance,” and that the investigation 

concludes that the EPA did, in fact, adhere to applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, 

and guidance in handling the proposed alternative oil and grease method, ASTM D7575. 

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Agreements 

No. Recommendation High Level Intended Estimated Completion 

Correction Action by Quarter and FY 

1 Establish a procedure for reviewing 

proposed methods for method-defined 

analytes. 

1.1 The OW will 

establish a 

procedure for 

reviewing 

proposed methods 

for methodThe EPA expects to 

have a draft procedure 

by December 2013. 

13-P-0317 20 
 

 

 

defined analytes 

for CWA use 

2 Establish procedures for designating 

official cut-off dates for future 

proposed MURs, and include these 

procedures on the OW’s website 

1.1 When the EPA 

initiates a methods 

update rulemaking 

(MUR), it will 

designate cut-off 

dates for 

consideration of a 

method for the 

MUR 

1.2 The OW will post 

these dates on its 

website 

1.3 If the MUR is 

delayed and the 

EPA determines it 

is appropriate to 

extend these dates, 

OW will post 

revisions to its 

website 

The OW will make 

such determinations 

and post the 

information on its 

website within a 

sufficient amount of 

time prior to 

proposing a MUR, 

generally at least 6 

months.[16] 

3 Clarify on the EPA’s website OW’s 

procedures and communications 

policies regarding the two distinct 

routes through which new methods 

may be approved by the EPA 

The OW will clarify 

on its website its 

procedures and 

communications 

policies regarding the 

two distinct routes 

through which new 

methods may be 

approved by the EPA 

in 40 CFR Part 136 

The OW plans to post 

this information to its 

website in 3rd Quarter 

FY 2013. [17] 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. The Office of Water generally agrees 

with the draft recommendations. Please contact Jan Matuszko at 202-566-1035 if you have any 

questions or need additional information. 

Attachment 

cc: EPA IG Liaison Team 

16 Subsequent to this action plan, OW clarified its response to Recommendation 2. On June 6, 2013, OW issued a 

memorandum to staff that outlines OW’s procedures for establishing cut-off dates for future MUR rulemakings, 

including posting the cut-off dates on OW’s website at least 6 months before proposing a MUR. According to the 

memorandum, OW will also post an explanation on its website as to what the cut-off dates mean. 

17 On July 2, 2013, the Director of OW’s Engineering and Analysis Division requested that the planned completion 

date for the corrective action for recommendation 3 be changed to September 30, 2013. We agreed with this change. 

13-P-0317 21 
 

Appendix C 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Water 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water 

13-P-0317 22