Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

WATER

Biosolids Management and Enforcement

2000-P-10

March 20, 2000 
Inspector General Division

 Conducting the Audit

Headquarters Audit Division

Washington, D.C.

Regions covered All

Program Offices Involved Office of Water

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Washington, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Biosolids Management and Enforcement

Audit Report No. 2000-P-10

FROM: Michael Simmons 

Deputy Assistant Inspector General

 for Internal Audits (2421)

TO: J. Charles Fox

Assistant Administrator for Water (4101)

Steven A. Herman

Assistant Administrator 

 for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

Our final audit report on Biosolids Management and Enforcement is attached. The

objectives of our review were to determine whether (1) EPA oversight of biosolids land

application can be more effective, and (2) the Government Performance and Results

Act goal for biosolids is appropriate and readily reportable. Our report contains

recommendations related to both objectives.

This audit report describes findings and corrective actions the Office of the

Inspector General (OIG) recommends to improve biosolids management and

enforcement. It represents the opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on matters in

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

audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings described in this audit report are

not binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the

Department of Justice.

ACTION REQUIRED

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, the Assistant Administrator for Water, as the

primary Action Official, is required to provide a written response to the audit report

within 90 days of the final audit report date. The response to the final report should
2

identify any completed or planned actions related to the report’s recommendations. For

corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, reference to

specific milestone dates will assist in deciding whether to close this report. 

We have no objection to the further release of this report to the public. Should you

or your staff have any questions, please contact John T. Walsh, Divisional Inspector

General, Headquarters Audit Division, on (202) 260-5113.

Attachment
Report No. 2000-P-10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION Domestic sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid, or

liquid by-product generated during the treatment of

wastewater at municipal wastewater treatment plants. 

These sewage treatment plants are referred to as

“publicly owned treatment works,” or POTWs. 

Domestic septage is the liquid or solid material

removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet,

type III marine sanitation device, or similar treatment

works that receives only domestic septage. Sewage

sludge includes domestic septage. The term

“biosolids” refers to sewage sludge that has been

treated and can be beneficially recycled. EPA

encourages land application of biosolids rather than

landfilling or incineration, and if applied properly,

biosolids help condition soil and provide a beneficial

use of waste. Land application means spraying or

spreading the material on the surface of the land,

injecting it below the surface, or incorporating it into

the soil. Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act

required EPA to establish regulations for the use and

disposal of sewage sludge. EPA issued the final rule,

40 CFR Part 503, Standards For The Use Or

Disposal of Sewage Sludge, on February 19, 1993.

The biosolids program is delegated to Texas,

Oklahoma and Utah. In all other states, EPA is

responsible for biosolids oversight.

OBJECTIVES We conducted this review in response to an Office of

Water (OW) request for an audit. The objectives of

our audit were to determine whether (1) EPA

oversight of biosolids land application can be more

effective, and (2) the Government Performance and

Results Act goal for biosolids is appropriate and

readily reportable. In this audit we did not review the

science and risk assessments related to Part 503.
ii Report No. 2000-P-10

RESULTS IN BRIEF EPA does not have an effective program for ensuring

compliance with the land application requirements of

Part 503. Accordingly, while EPA promotes land

application, EPA cannot assure the public that current

land application practices are protective of human

health and the environment.

Under Part 503, about 3,700 of the nation’s 16,000

POTWs must annually report to EPA regions:

information describing the concentration of pollutants,

the presence of pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses,

parasites), and the sludge’s attractiveness to vectors

(e.g., rodents, flies, mosquitoes) that could transmit

pathogenic organisms to humans. In FY1998, EPA

reviewed only about 38% of the Part 503 reports

submitted by POTWs. EPA performs few biosolids

related inspections of POTW operations, virtually no

inspections of land application sites, and few records

inspections at POTWs or land appliers. EPA regions

do not maintain data on the cumulative amounts of

pollutants at land application sites, even though Part

503 requires maintaining this data. There is no

regional oversight of septage land application. The

biosolids program has been delegated to only three

states, and there is virtually no federal oversight of

state biosolids programs in nondelegated states. 

Therefore, EPA does not have sufficient information

to determine compliance levels with the Part 503

regulatory requirements. This almost complete

absence of a federal presence in the biosolids

program results from the low priority given to

biosolids management by EPA’s Office of Water

(OW), and the decision of EPA’s Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) not

to commit enforcement resources to biosolids. This

may result in increased risks to the environment and

human health, and cause a loss of public confidence

in the biosolids program.

EPA is required by the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to set long-term and

annual goals, and to measure the results of its

programs in annual reports to Congress. EPA
iii Report No. 2000-P-10

established a FY1999 annual performance goal that

50% of biosolids be beneficially reused. However,

OW’s Clean Water Action Plan does not reflect the

priority to be given to biosolids land application even

though OW has established a GPRA land application

goal. EPA established this goal without defining

“beneficial reuse.” The goal also does not measure

reductions in point source pollution, the subobjective

under which the goal was established. Further, the

goal was established without identifying the

resources needed to achieve the goal, without clear

guidance to the regions on what data to gather, and

without describing verification and validation

procedures. Consequently, EPA regions are

measuring progress in different ways. Totaling these

inconsistent measurements does not provide a

meaningful picture of the national state of biosolids

use and disposal practices, and is not a useful

decision making tool for the biosolids program.

FINAL REPORT Although we believe our draft report

RECOMMENDATION recommendations best address the concerns raised

in this report, recognizing the realities of competing

priorities and limited resources, we provide revised

recommendations for Chapter 2 of this report. These

recommendations are preliminary steps which will

improve the biosolids program.

We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for

OW and OECA provide, by the end of fiscal 2001, an

analysis of whether the Agency’s proposed actions

provide a sufficient basis for assessing compliance

with Part 503 and assuring the public of the

protectiveness of land application practices. Our

suggested scope for this analysis, when completed,

will provide a basis for determining additional steps

that might be required to ensure that management of

biosolids is protective of human health and the

environment. We may conduct a follow-up review of

biosolids land application practices which would

focus on the effectiveness of the Agency’s actions

and the quality of its analysis.
iv Report No. 2000-P-10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i

ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... vii

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 1

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

Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1

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

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

Prior Audit Coverage ....................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2

Better Monitoring And Coordination Must Accompany

 Promotion Of Biosolids Land Application ............................................................ 6

Most Part 503 Reports Are Not Reviewed......................................................... 6

EPA Performs Few Biosolids Inspections

And Takes Few Enforcement Actions ........................................................ 8

EPA Regions Do Not Maintain Needed Site Inventories ................................. 11 

EPA Regions Conduct No Oversight of Septage Land Application .................. 12

Delegation Of The Biosolids Program Has Not Progressed ............................ 15

Low Risk Means Low Resources .................................................................... 16

EPA Efforts To Improve Biosolids Management ............................................. 20

Opportunities To Improve Biosolids Management ........................................... 21

Draft Recommendations ................................................................................. 21

Final Recommendations .................................................................................. 23

CHAPTER 3

Biosolids Goals And Performance Measures Are Not Useful

 Management Tools ............................................................................................. 25

Beneficial Reuse Is Not Defined ...................................................................... 25

The Biosolids Goal Does Not Contribute To

Reducing Point Source Pollution ................................................................ 26

Resource Needs Should Be Identified ............................................................. 29

The Midyear Progress Report For Biosolids Has Limitations ............................ 29
v Report No. 2000-P-10

Biosolids Data Verification Is Not Practical ...................................................... 30

Recommendations ........................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX A: Agency Response to the Draft Report ............................................ 33

APPENDIX B: Distribution ..................................................................................... 48
vi Report No. 2000-P-10

ABBREVIATIONS

CPLR Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate

CWA Clean Water Act

BDMS. Biosolids Data Management System

EMS Environmental Management System

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GAO General Accounting Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

MOA Memorandum Of Agreement

NBP National Biosolids Partnership

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

ORD Office of Research And Development

OW Office of Water

PCS Permits Compliance System

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
vii Report No. 2000-P-10

[This page was intentionally left blank]
1

Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made

ditches.

1 Report No. 2000-P-10

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 

Objectives We conducted this review in response to the Office of

Water’s request for an audit. The objectives of our

audit were to determine whether (1) EPA oversight of

biosolids land application is effective, and (2) the

Government Performance and Results Act goal for

biosolids is appropriate and readily reportable.

Background In 1977, Congress reauthorized the 1972 Federal

Water Pollution Control Act as the Clean Water Act

(CWA). The CWA prohibits discharging pollutants

from a point source1 into waters of the United States,

except in accordance with a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

Facilities, including wastewater treatment plants, that

discharge directly into waters of the United States

must comply with NPDES permits while entities, such

as industrial facilities, that contribute to the volume of

wastewater treated by direct dischargers, must

comply with pretreatment standards. The process

that a wastewater facility uses to treat water so that it

can be directly discharged results in the production of

“residuals” or sewage sludge. CWA §405(d) required

EPA to establish regulations for the use and disposal

of sewage sludge. The final rule, 40 CFR Part 503,

Standards For The Use Or Disposal Of Sewage

Sludge, was issued on February 19, 1993. 

Domestic sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid, or

liquid by-product generated during the treatment of

wastewater at municipal wastewater treatment plants. 

These sewage treatment plants are referred to as

“publicly owned treatment works,” or POTWs. 

Domestic septage is the liquid or solid material

removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet,
2 Report No. 2000-P-10

type III marine sanitation device, or similar treatment

works that receive only domestic septage. Sewage

sludge includes domestic septage. Sewage sludge

can either be (1) used as a fertilizer or soil

conditioner or (2) disposed of as waste in a landfill,

through incineration, or by other methods.

EPA refers to sewage sludge that has been treated

by removing water, killing pathogens (disease

causing organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and

parasites), and reducing sludge’s attractiveness to

vectors (e.g. rodents, flies, and mosquitoes) as

biosolids. EPA estimates that POTWs generate 7.5

million dry metric tons of biosolids annually, and that

54% of biosolids is land applied. EPA encourages

land application of biosolids over landfilling or

incineration, and if applied properly, biosolids help

condition soil and provide a beneficial use of waste. 

Land application of biosolids means spraying or

spreading of material on the surface of the land,

injecting it below the surface, or incorporating it into

the soil. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR

Part 503) establishes procedures to determine

biosolids quality and land application methods. Part

503 requirements include general requirements,

pollutant limits, management practices (e.g., length of

time before crops may be harvested for consumption

or before animals may graze in a field), operational

standards, and requirements for the frequency of

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.

The stringency of the regulatory requirements

associated with land application depends upon the

quality of the biosolids. EPA refers to biosolids that

meet the most stringent pollutant/pathogen/vector

limits as exceptional quality (EQ) biosolids. Part 503

places no restrictions on land application of EQ

biosolids. Biosolids that fail to meet any of the most

stringent parameters are Non-EQ biosolids.
2

The term “bulk sewage sludge” refers to sewage sludge (biosolids)

applied in quantities greater than one metric ton, generally by

commercial and municipal appliers to agricultural land, tree and turf

farms, golf courses, parks, and reclamation sites.

3

PCS is a national computerized information management system for

NPDES data that tracks permit issuance, permit limits, monitoring

data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES.

3 Report No. 2000-P-10

Most of the requirements governing land application

under Part 503 affect preparers and appliers of bulk,2

non-EQ biosolids. All POTWs must keep records for

five years describing pollutant concentrations, how

pathogen reduction requirements were met, and

whether and how the biosolids’s attractiveness to

vectors was reduced. By February 19th of each year,

approximately 3,700 POTWs must report this

information to the permitting authority. Land appliers

must keep records for five years describing site

management practices, site restrictions, and if the

preparer has not performed certain vector attraction

reduction steps, the applier must perform and record

them. 

Although most states have established some type of

biosolids management program, only Oklahoma,

Texas, and Utah have received full or partial program

delegation. Therefore, except in these three states,

EPA remains the permitting authority responsible for

the implementation of Part 503.

The Office of Water (OW), the Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and Office of

Research and Development (ORD) hold the major

responsibilities for the biosolids program. OW, as

National Program Manager, is responsible for (1)

development and periodic review of regulations, (2)

issuance of permits, and (3) delegation of the

program to states. OECA is responsible for reviewing

annual report submissions, entering relevant data

into the Permits Compliance System (PCS)3,

inspecting facilities and land application sites,

providing compliance assistance and undertaking

enforcement actions. ORD is revising pathogen
4Water Pollution: Serious Problems Confront Emerging Municipal

Sludge Management Program, GAO/RCED-90-57, March 5, 1990.

4 Report No. 2000-P-10

reduction and vector attraction reduction guidance;

researching biosolids issues; providing technical

support to EPA, states and industry; and through its

Pathogen Equivalency Committee, determining if

proposed pathogen reduction practices are

equivalent to those included in Part 503. 

Scope and Methodology OW’s letter suggesting a review of EPA’s oversight

and management of the biosolids program highlighted

the land application of biosolids and also referenced

a June 1997 Cable News Network (CNN)

investigative series which described the negative

aspects of biosolids use. Therefore, our review of the

biosolids program focused on implementation of Part

503 for land application and did not address any

other disposal option. We did not review the science

and risk assessments related to Part 503.

Our review was conducted from September 1998,

through July 1999. We interviewed OW and OECA

Headquarters representatives, collected biosolids

information from all regions, and visited Regions 3, 4,

5, 6 and 8. We visited several major POTWs and

contacted several state coordinators of biosolids

programs. We attended the 19th Annual Pumper &

Cleaner Environmental Expo, a septage industry

conference and trade show, and the 1999 National

Biosolids Conference, a conference for state and

federal biosolids program officials. 

Our audit work was performed in accordance with the

Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision)

issued by the Comptroller General of the United

States. We reviewed Federal Managers’ Financial

Integrity Act controls related to the audit objectives. 

Prior Audit Coverage There are no prior OIG audits focusing on biosolids

management. A 1990 General Accounting Office

(GAO) report4 identified potential problems for the

implementation of a national biosolids program,
5 Report No. 2000-P-10

including the possibility of continued low state

participation in the program, the probability of

inadequate resources and the need for development

of an effective enforcement program. GAO

concluded that key prerequisites for meeting EPA’s

interim program goals which faced fundamental

problems were “(1) strong participation in this

voluntary program by states, (2) oversight by EPA

regions of participating states and direct involvement

where states do not participate, and (3) oversight of

both regional and state activity by EPA

headquarters”. GAO also recommended the

establishment of a strong enforcement program. 

These issues are still relevant. Therefore, Chapters

2 and 3 of this report discuss how implementation of

GAO’s recommendations could still help strengthen

the current biosolids program.
6 Report No. 2000-P-10

CHAPTER 2

Better Monitoring And Coordination Must Accompany

Promotion Of Biosolids Land Application

EPA has not taken necessary steps to reasonably

ensure compliance with Part 503 requirements. EPA

reviewed fewer than 40% of the approximately 3,700

Part 503 reports submitted by POTWs in FY 1998. 

EPA performs almost no sludge related inspections of

POTW operations and virtually no inspections of land

application sites. EPA regions do not maintain site

records needed to ensure that appliers do not exceed

cumulative pollutant limits. There is no regional

oversight of septage land application. The biosolids

program has been delegated to only three states, and

there is virtually no federal oversight of state

biosolids management programs in nondelegated

states. Therefore, EPA does not have sufficient

information to determine compliance levels with the

Part 503 regulatory requirements. This almost

complete absence of a federal presence in the

biosolids program results from the low priority given

to biosolids management by EPA’s Office of Water

(OW), and the decision of EPA’s Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) not

to commit enforcement resources to biosolids. This

may result in increased noncompliance with Part 503

requirements, which would increase risks to the

environment and human health, and cause a loss of

public confidence in the biosolids program.

Most Part 503 Reports Part 503 requires submission of an annual report

from

Are Not Reviewed appropriate POTWs but does not specify a standard

report format. There is wide variation in both the

reporting formats and the amount of information

submitted. Since a number of states have developed

standardized reporting formats for their biosolids

management programs, POTWs in those states often

duplicate the state form for federal reporting. Some
5A Discharge Monitoring Report is the EPA national form for

reporting self-monitoring results by permittees.

6

The BDMS Internet Main Page is http://www.biosolidsinfo.com/.

7 Report No. 2000-P-10

EPA regions require the use of Discharge Monitoring

Report forms for Part 503 reporting.5 Some POTWs,

in addition to submitting specific information on

pollutant levels and pathogen and vector reduction,

send in copies of laboratory analyses of sludge

samples. This can result in far more data submitted

to EPA regions than Part 503 requires. 

Report reviews can provide initial indications of noncompliance with certain Part 503 requirements,

including metals concentrations and pathogen and

vector attraction reduction requirements. Reviews

may be followed by more information gathering,

compliance assistance, or, in some cases,

enforcement actions. Therefore, we contacted sludge

coordinators in each region to learn about the Part

503 report review process. The extent of reviews

varied by Region from tracking submission dates to

reviewing calculations. For FY 1998, we asked how

many annual reports EPA reviewed, and for estimates

of how long report reviews took. Table 1 (see page

8) summarizes the responses, which ranged from no

reports reviewed to all reports reviewed. 

Information provided in an annual report may be

entered into a data system for review, analysis, and

tracking. Region 8 took the lead in developing a

Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS). The

system software stores general information on each

facility, biosolids treatment provided, use/disposal

methods, land application site information, cumulative

load tracking, biosolids monitoring data, and 

information on pathogen and vector attraction

reduction. Data needed to measure compliance with 

Part 503 can be entered by POTWs, states, or EPA

regional staff. Presently, anyone can obtain the 

BDMS software via the Internet.6 OW plans to allow

the public to access the entire national database via
7Region 7 indicated that all reports will be reviewed, two-thirds have

been reviewed to date.

8Region 10 indicated that Part 503 reports are reviewed by the states.

8 Report No. 2000-P-10

the Internet, a step that OW hopes will promote 

increased public confidence in the biosolids program. 

If EPA is successful in getting POTWs and states to

input information, EPA regional staff will be able to

review the data more quickly.

Table 1: FY 1998 EPA Review Of Part 503 Annual Reports

Region

No. of 

Reports

No. of Reports

Reviewed by EPA

Estimated Time Required 

to Review Each Report

1 200 10 to 15 30 minutes to 1 hour

2 331 240 15 minutes to “days”

3 485 0 None

4 700 75 2 to 3 hours

5 700 42 A few minutes to a couple hours.

6 418 418 30-45 minutes

7 210 21075 minutes to over an hour

8 130 130 30-40 minutes for data entry, then 1-

2 hours for follow-up if necessary

9 320 280 5–15 minutes, plus follow up effort

10 166 08 Not applicable

Totals 3,660 1,405 - 1,410

EPA Performs Few Table 2 shows the universe of 16,024 POTWs by

Biosolids Inspections region, enforcement FTEs, inspections, and

And Takes Few enforcement actions reported to us by regional

Enforcement Actions biosolids coordinators; the table does not show the

number of land application sites or land appliers. 

EPA regional offices conduct few biosolids

inspections and take few enforcement actions. The 
9All data on FTEs, inspections and enforcements were provided to us

by regional staff. The estimate of 16,024 POTWs was provided by

OW Headquarters, based on the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey.

10Enforcements include formal and informal actions.

11Region 6 reported that there were 95 FY1998 NPDES inspections

including some aspect of biosolids management, but there were only 2

biosolids-specific inspections.

12Region 9's total of 68 inspections includes 50 inspections of biosolids

preparers and 18 land application or surface disposal sites. Region 9

also reported that it issued 50 “compliance assurance actions – notices

of failure to provide adequate monitoring or reporting.”

9 Report No. 2000-P-10

Table 2: 

FY 1998 Biosolids Inspections and Enforcement Actions

Region POTWs9

Enforcement

FTEs Inspections

Enforcement

Actions10

1 550 0.1 0 0

2 704 1.1 14 19 

3 1,368 0.5 2 1

4 2,395 2.0 24 34

5 3,298 1.5 42 9

6 2,538 0.75 2

11 4

7 2,403 0.5 7 13

8 1,264 0 0 0

9 823 0.5 6812 3

10 681 0.1 1 0

Totals 16,024 7.05 167 83

primary reason for this is lack of resources. There

are only 18.25 FTE assigned to the biosolids program

in the regions. Regional data provided to us indicate

that only 7.05 FTE are allocated for inspections and

enforcement, with the remainder assigned to permits,

technical assistance, and other duties.
10 Report No. 2000-P-10

Since appliers have no reporting requirements, no

information would be provided to EPA without a

specific request or an on-site inspection. Only

through actual inspections of land application sites

would EPA gain information about compliance with

Part 503 management requirements, such as use of

buffer zones, avoidance of wetlands, recognition of

harvesting restrictions and grazing restrictions. 

Table 2 shows biosolids inspections and enforcement

actions. The table shows that Region 4, with the

highest number of enforcement FTEs (2), had the

highest number of enforcement actions (34), while the

regions with 0.1 or fewer enforcement FTE reported 0

enforcement actions. The table also shows that there

is no correlation between the number of POTWs and

the number of FTEs.

GAO expressed concern in 1990 about the lack of a

strong biosolids enforcement program:

... [A] fundamental element of the sludge

program will be strong enforcement by EPA

regions and delegated states. Effective

enforcement serves as a deterrent to violations

and, when violations do occur, helps to ensure

that appropriate corrective action is taken in a

timely manner. Without effective enforcement,

the consequences of violating permit limits and

other program requirements are greatly

diminished – making it much less likely that

these requirements will be observed.... Among

the essential elements of an enforcement

program are (1) criteria that allow regulators to

set enforcement priorities, (2) criteria that

identify what type of enforcement actions are

appropriate and when they should be taken,
13Serious Problems Confront Emerging Municipal Sludge

Management Program, GAO/RCED-90-57, B-236805, March 5, 1990,

page 28-29.

14Except for Texas, Oklahoma and Utah, which have approved sludge

management programs, the “permitting authority” is the EPA

Regional Administrator.

11 Report No. 2000-P-10

and (3) effective oversight over EPA regional

and state enforcement by headquarters.13

EPA Regions Do Not Part 503 Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rates

Maintain Needed (CPLRs) establish the maximum amount of an

Site Inventories inorganic pollutant contained in biosolids that can be

land applied. For example, the pollution

concentration limit for Arsenic is 41 kilograms per

hectare. Before biosolids subject to CPLRs are

applied to land, the applier must contact the

permitting authority for the state in which the

biosolids will be applied,14 to determine the

cumulative amount of each pollutant applied to the

site since July 20, 1993. CPLR biosolids may be

applied to a site if no CPLR biosolids have been

applied previously, or if CPLR biosolids have been

applied and the cumulative amount of pollutants

applied to the site is known to total less than the

prescribed limits. If CPLR biosolids have been

applied, but the cumulative amount of each pollutant

is not known, then additional CPLR biosolids cannot

be applied to the site. 

Land appliers must indefinitely maintain records

documenting compliance with CPLRs. These records

must be readily accessible to state and EPA

inspectors. Prior to the initial application of CPLR

biosolids, the applier must provide written notice to

the permitting authority. The permitting authority is

required to maintain and provide access to the notice.

EPA regional offices do not maintain the records

needed to inform potential land appliers of the

cumulative amount of each pollutant applied to sites. 

Instead, regional personnel told us that they rely on

the states to maintain such records. But there are no
12 Report No. 2000-P-10

formal agreements between regions and states

pertaining to the maintenance or sharing of CPLR

information. If EPA regions do not maintain needed

site records, or ensure that states do so, land

appliers may be deprived of legitimate land

application sites.

EPA Regions Conduct Part 503 defines domestic sewage to include

No Oversight of Septage domestic septage, and therefore treated domestic

Land Application septage is also considered to be biosolids. However,

because the septage pumping industry is significantly

different from POTWs and the Part 503 requirements

differ for septage pumpers versus POTWs, septage

oversight and enforcement issues are discussed

separately from issues relating to biosolids generated

by POTWs.

EPA estimates that 68 million Americans are served

by on-site septic and other treatment facilities; that

these facilities generate 12.4 billion gallons (1.6

million dry metric tons) of septage annually; that 67%

of the septage pumped from septic tanks goes to

POTWs for treatment and that 33% is land applied as

septage or further treated by private haulers.

When domestic septage is applied to nonpublic

contact sites (agricultural land, forest, or reclamation

sites), the Part 503 treatment requirements for land

application of septage are comparatively simpler than

those for sewage sludge; the material is not tested for

metals, and if incorporated during application, no

additional treatment, such as liming, is necessary for

compliance with Part 503. However, when domestic

septage is handled other than by land application to

nonpublic contact sites, the same requirements apply

to both septage and sewage sludge. Under Part 503

there are no reporting requirements for septage land

application.

 

Four billion gallons of septage are land applied each

year. However, EPA regional offices conduct no

oversight of septage land application. EPA does not

regularly collect information on the amount of septage
13 Report No. 2000-P-10

generated or its method of disposal. EPA conducts

virtually no inspections of septage haulers’ records or

land application practices.

In February 1999, 9,290 septage and sludge

pumpers, tank cleaners and haulers representing

3,466 companies gathered in Nashville, Tennessee

for the 19th Annual Pumper & Cleaner Environmental

Expo. This event provides technical information to a

significant number of the industry in one location. A

pumper and owner of a septage treatment facility

presented an educational session on how to comply

with EPA’s regulations governing land application of

septage to an audience of over 500. 

 

After the presentation, over 60 of the attendees

accepted the speaker’s invitation to meet for a

discussion of the industry’s difficulties in complying

with EPA’s requirements. Two OIG audit staff were

present at the meeting. Participants described how

local land application bans, or the unwillingness of

POTWs to accept septage, caused some haulers to

drive significant distances to dispose of their waste. 

These types of restrictions result in higher

transportation costs, which are often passed on to the

septic tank owner. Pumpers who want to comply with

local, state and federal regulations governing land

application bear financial burdens, including costs of

lime stabilization; equipment cost for spreading or

injecting septage; licensing fees; and in some

locations, certification fees. Pumpers who comply

with all requirements must factor in these costs when

they set their fees. 

Septage disposers who do not comply with Part 503

need not spend the same amount of money as their

competitors who do comply. If a hauler uses low

quality or no lime, incorporates septage into the land

monthly rather than after each application, mixes

septage with industrial waste and still disposes of it

as septage, or even illegally dumps septage down a

manhole or in a remote area, profit margins can

increase dramatically. In this industry, as in other
14 Report No. 2000-P-10

industries, individuals complying with the regulations

are at an economic disadvantage with those who do

not comply and receive no enforcement penalties. 

The attendees who discussed these matters with us

stated consistently that it was important to the health

of their businesses for EPA to maintain an

enforcement presence.

There are approximately 30,000 companies in the

septage industry. Expo attendees told us that they

have repeatedly asked for enforcement of Part 503

requirements. The editor of the industry publication

(circulation 22,000) called the OIG to ask for

information on enforcement cases specific to the

industry. The editor wanted to publicize these cases

as a deterrent to those in the industry not following

Part 503 requirements. We asked several regional

enforcement officials if they knew of any completed

cases. The standard response was that states would

be better able to provide this information.

At the Environmental Exposition we were given

copies of a newspaper article, which reported

exposure and prosecution (by a state) of a septage

pumper who illegally dumped millions of gallons of

waste. We arranged to have the OIG hotline number

published in the industry newspaper. Procedures

were established for taking these calls and for

referring them. We first discussed referring them to

OECA’s Criminal Enforcement Division. However,

the Director stated that these type of cases were not

of federal interest. We then worked with regional

enforcement personnel to address these complaints. 

Many of the callers to the hotline were from within the

industry. One complainant claimed to have a video of

illegal dumping. Another offered to escort state

officials to the illegal dump site. Several callers

expressed frustration about their inability to get local,

state, or federal officials to take any action. One

region wrote the following to us:
15 Report No. 2000-P-10

It should be noted that while we are actively

investigating this particular hotline request, the

level of effort generally required to conduct

such a follow-up is beyond the capability of the

resources currently available. A more typical

response to an issue of this nature would be

our referral of the matter to local authorities

and a follow-up call to those authorities within

a month to six weeks to learn the outcome of

any type of local action. Efforts to deal with

non-compliant septage haulers need to be

localized and immediate. In [several states in

this region], our state environmental agency

counterpart is not the state entity that has

responsibility for regulating either the haulers

or the local governmental units which may

actually license the haulers.... We are working

with our Office of Regional Counsel to develop

some innovative uses of the legal authorities

and tools currently available to us under the

Clean Water Act regarding collecting penalties

from non-responsive haulers and/or possibly

enforcing against the county or state health

departments that license septage haulers who

may subsequently not be operating in

compliance with Part 503.

Given that the septage industry includes many small,

mobile haulers, we recognize that it may not be

practical for EPA to maintain a “hands on”

enforcement presence in each state. Working with

the septage industry and the states by publicizing

violations would provide a deterrent effect with a

minor resource investment.

Delegation Of The States can (and many have) establish biosolids

Biosolids Program oversight programs without EPA delegation, but

Has Not Progressed without delegation there is no requirement for states

to share information with the EPA. Presently, only

Texas, Utah and Oklahoma have EPA approved

biosolids management programs. There are currently

nine applications pending. One reason for the slow

pace of delegation is EPA’s objection to state self-
15In 1989, EPA expected that final regulations governing pollutant

concentration limits in sludge and acceptable management practices

would not be issued until 1991. Under the “interim implementation

strategy” EPA began immediately incorporating sludge conditions into

NPDES permits. 

16Serious Problems Confront Emerging Municipal Sludge

Management Program, GAO/RCED-90-57, B-236805, March 5, 1990,

page 25.

16 Report No. 2000-P-10

audit laws, under which, in response to voluntarily

disclosures of violations, states respond with

compliance assistance rather than enforcement. 

Some states indicate that lack of additional funding

for accepting delegation of the program is an obstacle

to delegation.

Low Risk Means The almost complete absence of a federal presence

Low Resources in biosolids oversight and enforcement can be

attributed to OW’s assessment, and OECA’s

acceptance, of the relatively low risk to human health

and the environment from biosolids. The inadequacy

of resources and its effects were pointed out by GAO

10 years ago. In March 1990, GAO’s report on EPA’s

interim implementation strategy15 identified two

problems that if not addressed could contribute to

delays and inefficiencies in EPA’s “Municipal Sludge

Management Program.” GAO stated that:

Among the potential obstacles ... are (1)

continued questions over the sufficiency of

resources to fully implement the program, (2)

the need to develop an effective enforcement

program to deter program violations and to

bring about compliance when violations do

occur....16

GAO elaborated on the lack of program resources by

examining the effect of insufficient resources on state

programs:

... [We] observed that insufficient resources

were a contributing factor toward low state

participation in the interim sludge program and
17Ibid.

17 Report No. 2000-P-10

toward incomplete implementation of program

requirements by EPA regions. Likewise, a

major factor affecting the success of the

permanent sludge program will be the extent to

which states participate – and the sufficiency

of EPA’s resources if they do not... [B]ased on

past experiences of other environmental

programs, as well as the types of problems

affecting the interim sludge program... there is

cause for concern as to whether EPA will have

sufficient resources to fully implement a

national sludge program.17

Seven years later, little had changed. Speaking to

the July 8 – 10, 1997, 3rd Annual OECA National

Conference, the then OW Assistant Administrator

said:

I have this other problem of ensuring that

[biosolids are] actually meeting [Part 503]

standards, and if not, we will do something

about it.... And yet, when I do risk

assessments, or any kind of work at an

Agency-level on what our priorities are, there

will always be a low risk because we have

studied biosolids for the last 25 years. So, it

always gets cut in the budget.... [If] we think

that the environmentally preferable thing is to

not burn [biosolids] or put them in landfills, but

to beneficially recycle them into the

environment, we’ll have to think of this other

concept of being able to provide the

assurances that [it] is safe.... We’re diligent in

deterring those that don’t do the right thing in a

National sense.... Why isn’t this an important

part of the enforcement, deterrence, and

compliance assurance aspect of our job? I

think it is. 

The former OW Assistant Administrator indicated that

EPA’s lack of information caused a loss of public
18 Report No. 2000-P-10

confidence in the biosolids program. He requested

that OECA provide an increased biosolids presence. 

His April 29, 1998, memorandum to OECA stated:

The low risk associated with using biosolids

previously caused us to divest many of the

resources assigned to biosolids oversight and

management in OW, OECA, and the regions. 

While some resource reduction is prudent for

lower risk situations, at least some among the

public perceive that risks from biosolids use

and disposal are high, that biosolids qualities

are poor, that inspections and enforcement are

small to nonexistent, and that EPA has limited

knowledge about what is going on.... Even

though risks associated with biosolids

recycling are low, the lack of adequate

information to provide better understanding

among the public is causing high-level concern

and rejection of beneficial reuse. Such

rejection can impair the ability of wastewater

treatment facilities to adequately treat

wastewater causing noncompliance not only

with respect to biosolids management but also

with respect to water quality.

The current OW Assistant Administrator echoed his

predecessor’s call for a stronger biosolids

enforcement presence. On December 9, 1998, the

current OW Assistant Administrator indicated to

OECA that he considers biosolids to be OW’s number

three priority, in part because:

Key to the success of beneficial reuse of

biosolids is ensuring that the biosolids

program has credibility with the public.... In

addition to the public concern, there are

several indications that neither the Agency nor

the States is making a sufficient effort to

assure that wastewater treatment facilities are

complying with the regulations. To insure that

the benefits of beneficial reuse of biosolids are

maximized, overseeing the quality of the
18Memorandum from the OW Assistant Administrator, to the

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA, December 9, 1998,

Subject: OW’s Review of FY2000/2001OECA MOA Draft Priorities.

19The Clean Water Action Plan describes EPA’s approach to

providing “fishable and swimmable” waters to all Americans.

20MOAs, negotiated between OECA and each EPA region, outline

enforcement and compliance assurance activities, priorities and

programs that will be implemented to achieve program goals.

19 Report No. 2000-P-10

biosolids being land applied and assuring that

the regulations governing land application are

properly enforced needs to be a priority.18

OECA Headquarters commits few resources to

biosolids enforcement, a decision referred to as

“disinvestment.” OECA explains that there are more

regulated communities than can be adequately

overseen with its available resources. Rather than

spread its limited resources so broadly that only

token efforts can be made in several areas, OECA

decided to concentrate its efforts in a few areas other

than biosolids, where it feels it can make a large

impact. OECA considers biosolids to be relatively

low risk, and notes that biosolids are not mentioned in

OW’s Clean Water Action Plan19 and are not a

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) priority.20

EPA promotes biosolids as beneficial material when

used properly (in accordance with Part 503), while

having no ability to ensure/enforce proper biosolids

use. If biosolids are not used properly, certain risks

increase. Contaminated or improperly handled

biosolids can result in pollutants re-entering the

environment. There can be adverse effects on

surface and ground water, wetlands, and on human

health. Contaminants can leach into existing or

potential potable water sources. Biosolids containing

high levels of pathogenic organisms can contaminate

soil, water, crops, livestock, fish and shellfish.

A loss of public confidence in the biosolids program

can lead to restrictive local ordinances and bans on
20 Report No. 2000-P-10

land application. In December 1998, a trade journal

reported that in over half the states, more than 50

percent of biosolids are beneficially used, with the

practice increasing in 30 states. At the same time, 18

states reported that local restrictions or outright bans

have been adopted. The effects of such restrictions

include increased hauling distances or a need to find

land application sites in other jurisdictions.

EPA Efforts To Improve EPA has undertaken initiatives aimed at improving

Biosolids Management biosolids management. In 1997, EPA, the

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and

the Water Environment Federation formed the

National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) to promote

sound biosolids management practices. NBP, funded

by a $900,000 congressional earmark in EPA’s FY

1999 budget, promotes voluntary adoption by

POTWs of an Environmental Management System

(EMS). EMS includes a set of good management

practices, a program of independent third-party

verification, and citizen input which NBP believes will

result in compliance with all applicable regulations

and foster public acceptance of biosolids beneficial

use. But EMS, at an implementation cost of up to

$20,000 per POTW, may be too expensive for many

of the roughly 12,000 small POTWs, nor is it likely to

have any impact on the 4 billion gallons of septage

that is land applied. EMS, which hopefully will raise

compliance for large POTWs, is not a substitute for

an adequate enforcement program.

BDMS (discussed on page 7) is a new system that

has not yet been widely adopted. We talked to

regional and state personnel who indicated that while

they think that BDMS is a good system, they lack the

staff to perform data entry. OW hopes that POTWs

will be willing to perform data entry and electronic

submission of Part 503 annual reports to states and

EPA. Although BDMS could be modified to track

enforcement data, it is not used for this purpose. 

Currently, OECA records enforcement actions in

PCS. EPA is upgrading PCS, with implementation

expected to take place in 2003. OW and OECA have
21 Report No. 2000-P-10

not determined whether BDMS will be absorbed into

PCS, or function as a separate system.

Opportunities To Improve EPA regions can increase public confidence in the

Biosolids Management biosolids program by maintaining a minimal federal

enforcement presence in exchange for sufficient state

information to manage the program and provide

effective oversight. Depending on what information

states collect for their own purposes, sufficient

information may simply mean providing the EPA

region with the same data states use internally to

assess risk and set priorities. In these cases, there

would be no new data collection and reporting

burden. 

Where regions are unable to draw informed

conclusions about the level of compliance from

available data, regions should plan to allocate

sufficient resources to gain that knowledge. Absent

state delegation, the EPA Regional Administrator is

the permitting authority. If EPA cannot reach

conclusions from state data, EPA would need to

develop alternative means of ensuring that biosolids

generators and land appliers comply with Part 503. 

We fully appreciate the resource constraints that all

parties face. Information sharing is the least resource

intensive step that the states and EPA can take to

meet their oversight responsibility and accomplish

land application goals.

Draft Recommendations The Assistant Administrators for OW and OECA

provided written comments on the draft report, which

appear as Appendix A. Although we believe our draft

report recommendations best address the concerns

raised in this report, recognizing the realities of

competing priorities and limited resources, we offer

revised recommendations which are preliminary steps

to improve the biosolids program.

Draft Report We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for
22 Report No. 2000-P-10

Recommendation 2-1 Water work with regions and states to develop and

implement measures to determine compliance with

Part 503. 

Agency Response OW responded that OECA would address issues

relating to the level of compliance. OECA indicated

that although no OECA resources are specifically

identified for biosolids enforcement, OECA would

review, on a case by case basis, any information

referred to it relating to violations of laws criminally

enforced by the Agency

Draft Report We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Recommendation 2-2 Water instruct regions to maintain, or formally

encourage that states maintain, Cumulative Pollutant

Loading Rate data.

Agency Response OW does not plan to implement this recommendation,

stating that most of the biosolids that are land applied

are of such quality that CPLR tracking is not

necessary. OW supports the development of the

BDMS which will enable wastewater utilities, States,

Regions, and others to store and monitor biosolids

data including site-specific CPLR information.

Draft Report We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Recommendation 2-3 Water encourage delegation of the biosolids

program.

Agency Response OW does not expect to devote significant resources

to encouraging the Regions to delegate the biosolids

program to the States. OW feels its efforts would be

better spent in improving communication between the

States and Regions, documenting State efforts

devoted to the regulation and oversight of biosolids

use and disposal practices, and working with State

and local agencies to increase the use of

environmental management systems.

Draft Report We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Recommendation 2-4 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance implement

GAO’s 1990 recommendation to establish an

effective enforcement program. As GAO explained:
23 Report No. 2000-P-10

To improve the prospects for an effective

permanent sludge program, we recommend

that the Administrator, EPA, take measures to

ensure that a strong enforcement component

is in place.... Among the key elements that

should be included are (1) criteria for

significant noncompliance so that enforcement

priorities can be determined, (2) criteria for

timely and appropriate enforcement so that the

type and timing of enforcement is known to

both regulators and POTWs, and (3) effective

oversight of EPA regional and state

enforcement efforts by headquarters.

Draft Report We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for

Recommendation 2-5 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Work with

the septage industry and state and local governments

so that septage haulers who violate Part 503 receive

appropriate penalties, and publicize this information

for its deterrent effect.

Agency Response to Draft OECA believes that it would be unwise to divert

Recommendations 2-4 & 2-5 scarce resources from the higher risk priorities

identified in the Clean Water Action Plan to carry out

the specific recommendations of the IG with respect

to biosolids. However, OECA will continue to

respond to limited Regional requests for assistance in

biosolids enforcement, and is developing detailed

audit protocols (i.e., a series of review steps) for the

NPDES program, which will cover the biosolids

program in detail.

Final Recommendations We recommend that the Assistant Administrators for

the Offices of Water and Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance provide, by the end of fiscal

2001, an analysis of whether the Agency’s proposed

actions provide a sufficient basis for assessing

compliance with Part 503 and assuring the public of

the protectiveness of land application practices. That

evaluation should include a scope of work and the

basis for conclusions for each of the following actions

proposed by the Agency:
24 Report No. 2000-P-10

1. Continued participation in the National Biosolids

Partnership, including the development and adoption

of environmental management systems;

2. Use of the Biosolids Data Management System or

comparable system to store and monitor biosolids

data, including site-specific information on the

Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate;

3. Improved communications between the regions

and states;

4. Maintaining documentation of state activities for

regulating and overseeing biosolids use and disposal

practices;

5. Development of audit protocols to assist regions,

states , and the regulated community in assessing

compliance with biosolids regulations. 
21The first Annual Performance Report is due March 31, 2000.

25 Report No. 2000-P-10

CHAPTER 3

Biosolids Goals and Performance Measures

Are Not Useful Management Tools

The Government Performance and Results Act of

1993 (GPRA) requires EPA to set long-term and

annual goals, and to measure the results of its

programs in annual reports to Congress.21 EPA

established a FY1999 annual performance goal that

50% of biosolids be beneficially reused. However,

EPA established this goal without defining “beneficial

reuse.” The goal also does not directly measure

reductions in point source pollution, the subobjective

under which it was established. Further, the goal was

established without identifying the resources needed

to achieve the goal, without clear guidance to the

regions on what data to gather, and without

describing verification and validation procedures. 

Consequently, EPA regions are measuring progress

in different ways. Totaling these inconsistent

measurements does not provide a meaningful picture

of the national state of biosolids use and disposal

practices, and is not a useful decision making tool for

the biosolids program. 

Beneficial Reuse OW did not define “beneficial reuse” when it created

Is Not Defined its biosolids goal. Beneficial reuse could refer to any

recycling of biosolids such as land application or

incorporation into another material (e.g., for

construction). EPA issued a definition of “beneficial

use” which predates Part 503. Under that definition:

“Beneficial use” means any application of

sludge to land specifically designed to take

advantage of the nutrient and other

characteristics of this material to improve soil
22Interagency Policy on Beneficial Use of Municipal Sewage Sludge on

Federal Land, 56 FR 33186, July 18, 1991.

26 Report No. 2000-P-10

fertility or structure and thereby further some

natural resource management objective.22

For GPRA reporting purposes, EPA regions are

reporting biosolids that are land applied. Therefore,

although OW has not defined beneficial reuse, the

remainder of this discussion equates beneficial reuse

with land application.

The Biosolids Goal Does GPRA requires an annual performance plan covering

Not ContributeTo Reducing each program activity set forth in an agency’s budget.

Point Source Pollution The plan must include performance goals; describe

the operational processes and resources required to

meet the performance goals; establish performance

indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the

relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of

each program activity; provide a basis for comparing

actual program results with the established

performance goals; and describe the means used to

verify and validate measured values. 

EPA has established the following long-term GPRA

goals and objectives:

• Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water

 • Objective 3: Reduce Loadings and Air Deposition

 • Subobjective 3.1: By 2005, annual point source 

 loadings from Combined Sewer Overflows, 

 POTWs, and industrial sources will be reduced 

 by 30% from 1992 levels.

To achieve subobjective 3.1, EPA established a

FY1999 annual performance goal that 50% of

biosolids are beneficially reused, and two

performance measures, (1) the number of POTWs

that are beneficially reusing all or part of their

biosolids and (2) where data exists, the percent of

biosolids generated that are beneficially reused. As

explained in the 1999 Annual Plan Request to the

Office of Management and Budget (the 1999 Plan):
23The term nonpoint source pollution refers to pollution attributed to

runoff and whose original source cannot be determined. If misapplied

biosolids run off the land and into water, this would be an instance of

nonpoint source pollution.

27 Report No. 2000-P-10

For 1999, the program has established a

performance goal that 50% of biosolids will be

beneficially reused. Efforts in this area will

lead to a reduction in pollutant discharges by

effectively managing the residuals of the

wastewater treatment process and ensuring

that a valuable resource is used effectively.

Sewage sludge is removed from wastewater during

treatment prior to discharge by the POTW. 

Reductions in point source pollution occur when

wastewater is treated, not when biosolids are used or

disposed. Therefore, although the amount or quality

of the sludge removed from the wastewater reduces

point source pollution, the manner of final disposal of

the biosolids does not affect the quality of the water

discharged from the pipe. In fact, if biosolids land

application is not done in accordance with Part 503,

the result can be runoff of biosolids into surface

waters. In that case, point source pollution is simply

exchanged for nonpoint source pollution.23

Additionally, measuring the number of POTWs that

are beneficially reusing all or part of their biosolids is

only a surrogate measure of the percent of biosolids

beneficially reused. Neither the percentage of

biosolids beneficially reused, nor the number of

POTWs beneficially reusing biosolids, provides

indications of whether point source pollution is

decreasing. The fact that EPA has not adequately

defined the universe of biosolids to resolve issues of

whether Regions should only count biosolids reported

in annual reports or estimate biosolids production and

use in the Region, including the amount landfilled, as

well as septage, only serves to compound the

difficulty in establishing the percentage of biosolids

beneficially reused. 
28 Report No. 2000-P-10

Finally, EPA has no control over the annual

performance goal it selected for the biosolids

program. Part 503 explicitly states, “[t]his part does

not require the selection of a sewage sludge use or

disposal practice. The determination of the manner

in which sewage sludge is used or disposed is a local

determination.” Factors that may affect the selection

of a use or disposal option include transportation

costs, landfill tipping fees compared to the cost of

land application, land application conditions

(including weather and soil characteristics), the

availability of land application sites and incineration

facilities, as well as state biosolids regulations,

county ordinances and bans. Therefore, changes in

biosolids program efforts will not necessarily be

reflected by any change (positive or negative) in the

percentage of biosolids land applied. 

Goals for the biosolids program that would encourage

a more holistic view of wastewater management and

provide greater feedback for the functioning of the

NPDES and pretreatment programs could involve

information regarding the percentage of sludge that is

EQ for metals (prior to any re-mixing) or the quantity

of metals removed from wastewater. These

measures would more directly measure reductions in

point source pollution and more accurately

characterize possible nonpoint source pollution from

noncompliance with Part 503 management practices. 

Cleaner sludge should not result in more polluted

effluent, since NPDES permit limits should continue

to ensure the quality of the effluent is maintained.

Although the 50% reuse goal does not directly

measure point source pollution reduction and EPA

does not have control over its achievement, the goal

could have value to EPA as a measure of pollution

prevention. For example, EPA’s goal of reducing the

volume of municipal solid waste being landfilled is a

pollution prevention measure. The volume of sewage

sludge recycled instead of landfilled could assist in

measuring EPA's progress toward pollution

prevention.
29 Report No. 2000-P-10

Resource Needs Resources needed to accomplish the 50% beneficial

Should Be Identified reuse goal are not described in the 1999 Plan. The

Plan states that the NPDES program includes

NPDES permits, the pre-treatment program for nondomestic wastewater dischargers into municipal

sanitary sewers, and biosolids management controls. 

In January 1999, an OW official explained that:

[O]ur decision to reinvest in biosolids was

relatively recent - about a year and a half....

[W]e decided to reinvest in biosolids after the

FY99 budget had gone forward, so no

resources were expressly included in the 99

budget for biosolids. We received money from

the [Assistant Administrator] in 1998 to get

underway and we built the program around

that money.... 

The Midyear Progress OW Headquarters requires EPA regions to report the

Report For Biosolids percentage of biosolids land applied. Midyear (April

Has Limitations 1999) regional reports ranged from 33% in Region 5

to 80% in Region 7. The arithmetic average of all 10

regions indicates that 53% of biosolids are

beneficially reused nationwide. But interpretation of

these figures must recognize that:

(1) the regions do not have accurate measures of

biosolids land application or disposal options. For

example, no regional estimates include septage, even

though the Part 503 definition of domestic sewage

sludge includes domestic septage; and

(2) given the differences among regions in the

number of POTWs and total biosolids generated, an

arithmetic average of regional percentages is not an

accurate picture of the national percentage of land

applied biosolids. 

Biosolids Data Biosolids data verification is hampered by the lack of

Verification a central location for biosolids data. While OW’s

Is Not Practical Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS,

described on page 7 of this report) can capture
30 Report No. 2000-P-10

biosolids production, use and disposal information,

Chapter 2 explained that at present BDMS is not

widely used, but EPA is promoting the database

although its use is not required. According to OW,

BDMS could be used to track enforcement data, but

currently is not used for that purpose. The

relationship between BDMS and PCS has not been

clarified, and PCS modernization is expected to take

years. So EPA may be years away from having a

single automated repository for biosolids production,

use and disposal, and enforcement data. It is unlikely

that EPA will be able to store or verify data on the

amount of biosolids produced, and biosolids use and

disposal practices, for over 16,000 POTWs (or even

just the 3,660 reporters) without an automated

information system.

Recommendations If EPA continues to measure the current goal of

beneficial reuse of biosolids, we recommend that the

Assistant Administrator for Water:

3-1 Define “beneficial reuse;”

3-2 Provide guidance to the regions concerning

what data should be collected and where

collected data should reside.

3-3 Establish procedures to verify collected data.

Agency Response OW will provide additional guidance to the Regions

and States as to what “beneficial use” means. By

April 2000, OW will provide additional guidance to

the Regions and States as to how data is to be

collected, assessed, and reported to Headquarters.

OIG Evaluation The proposed corrective actions will address

recommendations 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 and no further

action is required.

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for

Water: 
31 Report No. 2000-P-10

3-4 Allocate the resources necessary to determine

progress toward the established goal.

Agency Response OW’s budget does not specifically identify resources

for biosolids. However, the Office of Science and

Technology continues its regulation development

activities, and OW will continue to support biosolids

with approximately two FTEs, minimal contract and

grant funds, and with Congressional earmark funds.

OIG Evaluation The Agency’s response is insufficient. GPRA

requires that EPA specify what goals it will

accomplish and how the goals will be accomplished. 

To establish a goal of 50% beneficial use, and not to

identify the resources needed to accomplish the goal,

does not reflect compliance with GPRA. As long as it

has a GPRA goal, OW should identify needed

resources.

If OW elects to review and redefine goals for the

biosolids program, we recommend that the Assistant

Administrator for Water:

3-5 Select annual performance goals and

indicators for the biosolids program that reflect

the goal of reducing point source or nonpoint

source pollution, such as percentage of EQ

sludge, adoption of best management

practices, or the quantity of metals removed

from wastewater or compliance rates with Part

503 management practices.

3-6 Identify the actions and investments needed to

accomplish the revised goals.

Agency Response For at least the next year or two, OW will continue to

use beneficial use of biosolids as a goal and measure

under GPRA. OW will initiate discussions with

Regional offices and States to see if there is a better

measure for assessing the success of the biosolids

program. The first opportunity to do this will be the

next annual meeting for Regional and State biosolids

coordinators scheduled for June 26-29, 2000.
32 Report No. 2000-P-10

OIG Evaluation As noted under Recommendation 3-4, GPRA requires

that along with goals, OW should identify the

resources needed to achieve its goals, and the data

to be collected to measure progress. OW expressed

concern “that there is considerable advance work

needed to develop and implement a new performance

measure.” Providing a date by which OW expects to

complete its assessment of whether to amend its

biosolids performance goal will address this

recommendation.
-33- Report No. 2000-P-10

APPENDIX A

Agency Response to the Draft Report

February 24, 2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report on Biosolids Management and Enforcement

(No. 99P-000301)

FROM: J. Charles Fox /s/

Assistant Administrator

TO: Michael Simmons

Deputy Assistant Inspector General

 for Internal Audits

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report on biosolids

management and enforcement. We appreciate your staff’s effort to give us a careful

review of the topic. I will first present some general observations and then I will

address your specific recommendations. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

• OW was responsible for developing and issuing 40 CFR Part 503 as it exists

today, and it has activities underway to develop necessary modifications to that

rule. OW will continue to work with EPA Regions and States to implement

biosolids requirements, including through National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits where appropriate. As you are aware, 40

CFR Part 503 was designed to be self-implementing, meaning that those subject

to the rule are required to comply whether or not a permit is issued. 

• OECA’s letter, which is attached (Attachment 1), addresses the area of

determining the level of compliance.

•
-34- Report No. 2000-P-10

• A program for regulation, compliance oversight, and enforcement of biosolids

use and disposal exists in every State. The regulations of most States are

equivalent to, or more restrictive than, 40 CFR Part 503. Even though EPA has

delegated the biosolids program to only three States, programs are in place in

the non-delegated States that provide additional oversight.

• In addition to developing required modifications to 40 CFR Part 503, OW’s

primary activity related to biosolids has beem promoting more effective biosolids

management and encouraging beneficial use consistent with the Agency’s Policy

on Municipal Sludge Management issued in 1984 and with section 405(g)(1) of

the Clean Water Act. For this reason, OW proposed an annual performance

measure related to beneficial use of biosolids and developed the Biosolids Data

Management System (BDMS) to help track use and disposal practices,

especially beneficial use. The annual performance measure issue is discussed

further below and in Attachment No. 2.

 • To complement our internal activities to promote more effective biosolids 

 management, the Office of Wastewater Management is also working 

 closely with the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the Association

 of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) through the National Biosolids

 Partnership (NBP). The primary focus of this voluntary alliance is to develop

 a biosolids environmental management systems (EMS) program and facilitate the

 the adoption of EMSs by publicly owned treatment works for their biosolids

 activities.

 • Environmental management systems were first adopted by private industry, but 

are now being used more widely by public organizations. Consistent with EPA’s 

overall policy on EMSs, my office is managing projects to encourage public

agencies to adopt EMSs, in addition to our work with the NBP. EMSs provide

organizations with a structured process and procedures for assessing the full 

range of environmental impacts of their operations, both regulated and 

unregulated, and for reducing those impacts over time. In addition, they can

enable organizations to identify more efficient ways to reduce environmental 

impacts through pollution prevention. Finally, adoption of an EMS, especially by

public entities, requires an organization to communicate with local stakeholders 

and address issues raised by these stakeholders that are not necessarily

regulated, like odor and noise.

 • Adoption of EMSs will support EPA’s biosolids program goals by:

 1) helping organizations implement biosolids programs that comply with 

 our Part 503 regulations and any other State requirements;
-35- Report No. 2000-P-10

 2) encouraging adoption of best management practices by these 

 organizations that support beneficial reuse and protection of overall water 

 quality; and 

 3) facilitating better communications with local stakeholders and addressing

 issues they are concerned about.

RESPONSE TO OIG RECOMMENDATIONS:

The report recommends that the Assistant Administrator for Water “work with the

regions and states to develop and implement measures to determine compliance

with Part 503, instruct regions to maintain, or ensure that states maintain,

Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate [CPLR] data, and encourage delegation of the

biosolids program.” 

Response:

• OECA’s response addresses issues relating to the level of compliance

with 40 CFR Part 503.

• Although the regulations and associated guidance documents imply that

the permitting authority (i.e. the appropriate EPA Regional Office or

authorized State agency) is a repository for data on the cumulative loads

of pollutants applied to specific land parcels since February 19, 1993, the

regulations do not actually require CPLR data to be reported until 90

percent of the maximum cumulative limit of any one pollutant has been

reached. It should be noted that most of the biosolids that are land

applied are of such quality that CPLR tracking is not necessary. 

• OW’s Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) has supported the

development of the BDMS which will enable wastewater utilities, States,

Regions, and others to store and monitor biosolids data including sitespecific CPLR information.

• OW does not expect to devote significant effort to encouraging the

Regions to delegate the biosolids program to the States. At the present

time, there is little incentive for the States to seek delegation, and some

States see impediments to delegation, e.g. the effect of State self-audit

statutes, and issues related to the Endangered Species Act and the

National Environmental Policy Act. At the present time, we feel that OW’s

efforts would be better spent in improving communications between the

States and Regions, documenting State efforts devoted to the regulation

and oversight of biosolids use and disposal practices, and working with
-36- Report No. 2000-P-10

State and local agencies to increase the use of environmental

management systems. 

The report recommends that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance: (1) “[i]mplement GAO’s 1990 recommendation to establish

an effective enforcement program” and (2) “[w]ork with the septage industry and

state and local governments so that septage haulers who violate Part 503 receive

appropriate penalties, and publicize this information for its deterrent effect.”

Response:

• Please see OECA’s specific comments in Attachment No. 1.

The report discusses the annual performance measure related to beneficial use of

biosolids established pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA), points out a number of deficiencies in the manner in which the goal was

established, and states that it “does not provide a meaningful picture of the national

state of biosolids use and disposal practices, and is not a useful decision making

tool for the biosolids program.” The report suggests that there might be better 

measures available to address “reductions in point source pollution and more 

accurately characterize possible nonpoint source pollution from non compliance

with Part 503 management practices.” The report concludes:

If EPA continues to measure the current goal of beneficial use of

biosolids, we recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:

define “beneficial reuse,” provide guidance to the regions concerning

what data should be collected and where collected data should reside,

establish procedures to verify collected data, allocate resources

necessary to determine progress toward the established goal. [and]

If OW elects to review and redefine goals for the biosolids program, we

recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: select annual

performance goals and indicators for the biosolids program that reflect the

goal of reducing point source or nonpoint source pollution, such as

percentage of EQ sludge, adoption of best management practices, or the

quantity of metals removed from wastewater or compliance rates with Part

503 management practices [and] identify the actions and investments

needed to accomplish the revised goals.

Response:

• A discussion as to why and how this measure was established under Goal

2 rather than Goal 4 which addresses pollution prevention is included in

Attachment No. 2.
-37- Report No. 2000-P-10

• For at least the next year or two, OW will continue to use beneficial use of

biosolids as a goal and measure under GPRA. We will initiate

discussions with our Regional offices and States to see if there is a better

measure for assessing the success of our biosolids program. The first

opportunity for doing this will be the next annual meeting for Regional and

State biosolids coordinators scheduled for June 26-29, 2000, in

Cincinnati. I hope you can appreciate that there is considerable advance

work needed to develop and implement a new performance measure. In

the interim, we will provide additional guidance to the Regions and States

as to what we mean by beneficial use in this context and on how data is to

be collected, assessed, and reported to Headquarters. We have already

drafted such guidance and plan to include it in the next annual program

guidance which will be circulated for comment soon with the final version

to follow in April 2000.

• OWM has devoted considerable resources to development of the BDMS

and is encouraging Regions, States and others to use that system for

collection, storage, and analysis of biosolids information. We have also

encouraged OECA to incorporate BDMS into the Modernized Permits

Compliance System. Many States and Regions have begun to use

BDMS, and some Regions are encouraging POTWs and others to use

the system as the means of providing the Part 503 annual report for 1999

that is due in February 2000 or are providing a reporting form that will

make Regional entry of data into BDMS much easier. OWM will continue

to support BDMS to the extent resources allow. If States, Regions, and

wastewater utilities use the BDMS or a compatible system, we will be in a

position to determine current use and disposal practices, the amount of

biosolids being beneficially used, biosolids quality (e.g. the amount

meeting Table 3 of the regulations), and the status of compliance with the

Part 503 rule.

• OW’s budget does not specifically identify resources for biosolids. 

However, the Office of Science and Technology continues its regulation

development activities, and OWM has been able to, and will continue to,

support a biosolids program with approximately two FTEs, with minimal

discretionary contract and grant funds, and with Congressional earmark

funds. John Walker of OWM leads a cross-office Biosolids Program

Implementation Team (BPIT) to coordinate and facilitate the Agency’s

limited biosolids resources.

I have also included, in Attachment 2, some suggested editorial changes to the

report.
-38- Report No. 2000-P-10

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. Should you

wish to discuss them with me, please give me a call. Your staff may also wish to talk

directly with Michael B. Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management (260-5850),

or John Walker of the Municipal Technology Branch, Municipal Support Division

(260-7283). For any questions related to our work with the NBP on its EMS program or

other EMS related issues, please contact Jim Horne (260-5802).

Attachments

cc: Sylvia Lowrance, OECA

Eric Shaeffer, ORE/OECA

Michael Stahl, OC/OECA

Leo D’Amico, OCEFT/OECA

Sue Priftis, OC/OECA

Beth Cavalier, ORE/OECA

Kevin Guarino, OCEFT/OECA

Greg Marion, ARMSS/OECA

Chuck Sutfin, PD/OWM/OW

Geoff Grubbs, OW/OST

Alan Rubin, OW/OST

Jim Horne, OWM 

Regional Administrators, Regions I-X

Biosolids Coordinators, Regions 1-X
-39- Report No. 2000-P-10

Attachment No. 1

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OECA’s Response to Draft IG Report on Biosolids 

FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance /s/

Principle Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

TO: Jonathan C. Fox

Assistant Administrator,

Office of Water

Attached you will find OECA’s response to the Biosolids Management and Enforcement

Draft Audit Report (No. 99P-000301.) The report was reviewed by OECA staff and managers in

our civil and criminal enforcement programs, and by our compliance assurance program. We look

forward to receiving a copy of the consolidated Agency response to this audit report.

If you have any questions about OECA’s response or if you need additional information,

please contact Greg Marion, OECA’s IG/GAO Liaison. Greg can be reached at 564-2446. 

Attachments

cc: Eric Schaeffer, Director, ORE

Michael Stahl, Acting Director, OC

Leo D’Amico, Acting Director, OCEFT

Sue Priftis, OC

Beth Cavalier, ORE

Kevin Guarino, OCEFT

Greg Marion, ARMSS
-40- Report No. 2000-P-10

OECA Response to Draft IG’s Report on Biosolids

Draft Audit Report No. 99P-000301

1. OECA Comments on Draft Findings

The draft IG’s report characterizes OECA’s position on biosolids enforcement resources as follows:

“OECA Headquarters does not commit any resources to biosolids enforcement, a decision referred to as

‘disinvestment.’ OECA explains that there are more regulated communities than can be adequately

overseen with its available resources. Rather than spread its limited resources so broadly that only token

efforts can be made in several areas, OECA decided to concentrate its efforts in a few areas other than

biosolids, where it feels it can make a large impact. OECA considers biosolids to be relatively low risk,

and notes that biosolids are not mentioned in OW’s Clean Water Action Plan and are not a Memoranda of

Agreement (MOA) priority.” Draft IG report at page 14.

 Although the cited quotation is basically correct, OECA wishes to amplify the first quoted sentence

above (“OECA Headquarters does not commit any resources to biosolids enforcement, a decision referred

to as ‘disinvestment.’”). It is true that no OECA resources are specifically identified for biosolids

enforcement. Given the current budget climate and the reductions that have been sustained in the

enforcement program, OECA chooses to devote resources to those areas that represent a higher risk. The

attached charts demonstrate the vast size of the regulated universe as compared to the available resources. 

However, OECA certainly recognizes that biosolids are part of the core NPDES program and has

responded to limited requests for Headquarters assistance from the Regions on biosolids issues and cases

(often administrative). The Regions and states may focus on biosolids as part of the base program as they

determine is appropriate. OECA has left biosolids enforcement to be determined on a Region by Region

basis without an OECA national strategy for the reasons correctly stated above by the draft IG’s report.

The disposal and use of biosolids is subject to permits issued under the National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System, 33 U.S.C.§1342. Regulations pertaining to biosolids disposal are found at 40 CFR

part 503. Biosolids disposal cases are enforced criminally pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1319(c)(1)(A) and

(c)(2)(A). The criminal provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provide criminal sanctions

for the negligent or knowing violation of 33 U.S.C. §1345, relating to the disposal or use of sewage sludge

and 33 U.S.C. §1342, relating to violations of National Discharge Elimination System permits. 

OECA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensic and Training, Criminal Investigation Division, will

review, on a case by case basis, any information relating to violations of laws criminally enforced by the

Agency. All allegations of violations of biosolids disposal regulations, as well as any other criminal

provision enforced by the Agency will be evaluated using the OCEFT policy memorandum entitled “The

Exercise of Investigative Discretion.” The prior regulatory history of a potential subject will also be

considered. Another factor in determining OCEFT’s involvement in a biosolids disposal case would be the

potential for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in situations where the chemical

composition of a biosolid would meet the regulatory definition of a RCRA hazardous waste.

All referrals by the Office of Water and the EPA Regional Offices, relating to alleged violations of the

program, will be reviewed by our Area Offices for potential criminal enforcement. 

2. OECA Response to Draft IG Recommendations
-41- Report No. 2000-P-10

 The draft IG’s report (at page 16) recommends that OECA (1) publish national criteria for biosolids

significant non-compliance, (2) publish national biosolids criteria for timely and appropriate

enforcement, (3) provide effective oversight of EPA Regional and State biosolids enforcement efforts,

and (4) “work with the septage industry and state and local governments so that septage haulers who

violate Part 503 receive appropriate penalties, and publicize this information for its deterrent effect.” 

 OECA does not dispute the value of the above recommendations. However, OECA feels

compelled to allocate resources on the basis of relative risk, which drives the establishment of

enforcement priorities under the Clean Water Act. As explained during the IG interviews with OECA

personnel, enforcement priorities under the Clean Water Act are set out in the FY 2000/2001 OECA

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Guidance (MOA Guidance) and in the Clean Water Action Plan. 

The priorities are developed on the basis of risk in consultation with the Regions. The current Clean

Water Act enforcement priorities in the MOA Guidance relate to “wet weather areas: the Combined

Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy, the Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Enforcement Management System,

the National Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Sector Strategy (including the CAFO

Implementation Plan), and Storm Water regulations.” These Clean Water Act enforcement priorities

address areas posing greater environmental risk than biosolids. 

 The draft IG report itself acknowledges that resources are based on priorities. The executive

summary of the draft report states that “We recognize that there may be higher priority needs for OW

and OECA resources.” OECA has no additional staff resources for FY 2000. In fact, the draft report

acknowledges appreciation of “the resource constraints that all parties face.” Draft IG report at page

16. To do the biosolids enforcement work recommended by the draft IG report would mean diverting

staff from the Clean Water Act enforcement priorities described above. Because the priorities are, in

the opinion of OECA, addressing areas of higher risk than biosolids, OECA does not respectfully

believe it should divert Clean Water Act enforcement resources away from high risk priority areas to

biosolids. 

However, OECA will continue to respond to limited Regional requests for assistance in biosolids

enforcement as part of the core program. In addition, OECA’s Office of Compliance is currently

developing detailed audit protocols for the NPDES program. These protocols will cover the biosolids

program in detail, and may be used by EPA Regional and state personnel, as well as the regulated

community to assist them in determining compliance with the biosolids regulations. OECA expects to

complete these audit protocols by spring of 2000.

OECA’s compliance assistance center, the Local Government Environmental Assistance Network

(www.lgean.org) is a resource available to all local governments to assist them with compliance with

the biosolids regulations, as well as other regulations. OECA has made this resource available to the

Office of Water to assist them in their outreach efforts. 
-42- Report No. 2000-P-10
-43- Report No. 2000-P-10
-44- Report No. 2000-P-10

Attachment No. 2

OW’s Comments and Suggestions for Editorial Changes to 

the OIG Report on Biosolids Management & Enforcement

1. The report needs to include an explanation as to how and why the biosolids measure was

included under Goal 2 where it doesn’t seem to fit. We offer the following explanation for

your consideration. When goals and measures for use under the Strategic Plan developed in

response to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) were first being

developed, OW proposed a goal/measure related to beneficial use of biosolids because it

would support one of OW/OWM’s significant activities, and it would serve to reinforce the

Agency’s Policy on Municipal Sludge Management published in the Federal Register on June

12, 1984. Since the goal/measure related to beneficial use of biosolids seemed to more

directly support the pollution reduction objectives of Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan, it was

originally placed under that Goal. Later on, the biosolids goal/measure was moved to Goal 2

to avoid mingling budgets of two offices (OW & OSWER) under one goal. 

2. Most Regions know what data they should collect under the 503 reporting process. Some

provide specific guidance and or forms/formats to POTWs and others are required to report. 

For the 1999 report, due on February 19, 2000, some regions are strongly suggesting the use

of BDMS for tracking and reporting or providing a reporting form that will make entry of

data into BDMS much easier. BDMS has been designed to: (a) accommodate direct data

entry by POTWs, other generators, and land appliers, (b) allow tracking of the

quality/quantity of biosolids on a field-by-field basis, (c) allow easy analysis of the data, (d)

permit data and reports to be submitted to the permitting agency (State or Region)

electronically. We will continue to encourage our Regional Offices, the States, and the

regulated community to use the BDMS and, to the extent resources allow, will support its

upkeep and maintenance until it can be incorporated into GEMS, the successor to the present

PCS.

3. Page i: 

1. First paragraph: First sentence should be revised as follows: Domestic s Sewage sludge is

the solid, semi-solid, or liquid by-product generated during the treatment of wastewater

domestic sewage at municipal wastewater treatment plants in a treatment works. The

suggested change is more in line with the regulations. The important point is that the

regulations apply to privately owned as well as publicly owned treatment facilities

treating domestic sewage.

2. First paragraph: If you accept the suggested change to the first sentence, you can delete

second sentence.

3. First paragraph: Revise the 6th sentence as follows: EPA encourages land application

beneficial use of biosolids, and land application is one of the most common forms of
-45- Report No. 2000-P-10

beneficial use. rather than landfilling or incineration, and if applied properly, biosolids help

condition the soil and provide a beneficial use of waste.

4. First paragraph: Revise the 7th sentence as follows: Land application means spraying or

spreading the material on the surface of the land, injecting it below the surface,

or incorporating it into the soil so that the sewage sludge can either condition the

soil or fertilize crops or vegetation grown in the soil. Soil conditioning or

fertilization of crops/vegetation is an essential element of land application.

5. Delete the entire 1st paragraph in the section entitled “Results in Brief.” The second

sentence of this paragraph is particularly troublesome in that it might give the uninformed

reader the impression that land application practices in accordance with the regulations are

not protective of human health and the environment. The real issue, as you correctly state

in the following paragraph and in the first paragraph on Page 5 is that EPA and State

regulatory agencies cannot provide documentation to determine compliance levels with

the Part 503 requirements.

4. Page ii:

1. Paragraph that continues from previous page: Add the following sentence to the end of

the paragraph: OECA will, however, support the biosolids efforts/initiatives of the

Regional offices and will evaluate all referrals it receives for potential criminal

enforcement.

5. Page 1:

1. 1

st paragraph in Background section: The first sentence or two must be modified. As

currently written, it implies that discharge permits were first required by the 1977

Amendments. Actually, NPDES permits were required by the 1972 Act. You might want

to delete the first sentence entirely and explain in a footnote that the CWA refers to the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972, 1977, etc.

2. 2

nd paragraph in Background section: Revise first sentence or two to convey the correct

idea that sewage sludge results from the treatment of domestic sewage in any treatment

work, whether publicly or privately owned.

3. 3

rd paragraph in Background section: Total production of biosolids is approximately 7.5

million dry metric tons/year. It is incorrect to imply that all of it originates from POTWs. 

Also, the official policy of EPA is to encourage “beneficial use,” not ”land application.” 

(See 1984 Policy Statement.) 
-46- Report No. 2000-P-10

6. Page 2:

1. 1

st paragraph: The “definition” of land application provided is incomplete. Revise as

follows: “. . . into the soil so that the sewage sludge can either condition the soil or

fertilize crops or vegetation grown in the soil.”

2. 2

nd paragraph: Revise first sentence as follows: “. . . quality of the biosolids and the crops

grown on or in the soil.”

3. 3

rd paragraph: Record-keeping requirements are not limited to POTWs as the 2nd sentence

implies.

7. Page 5:

1. 1

st paragraph: You need to modify the paragraph slightly because POTWs are not the only

facilities required to report to the permitting agency. Significant generators and land

appliers must also report. 

2. 1

st paragraph: Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: OECA will,

however, support the biosolids efforts/initiatives of the Regional offices and will evaluate

all referrals it receives for potential criminal enforcement.

8. Page 6:

1. Please revise the chart to show that Region 2 reviewed 277 reports and that Region 8

reviewed 273 reports.

9. Page 7:

1. 2

nd full paragraph: It’s true that most land appliers of sewage sludge are not required to

submit reports to the permitting authority, but all are required to maintain records and

have the records available virtually on demand.

10. Pages 7 & 8:

1. We recommend you add some words to emphasize that some POTWs (e.g. lagoons and

small package plants) do not produce sludge/biosolids on a regular basis and that there

are facilities other than POTWs subject to the regulations.
-47- Report No. 2000-P-10

11. Page 10:

1. 1

st paragraph: We suggest you revise the last sentence to read that septage haulers are

required to keep records even though they may not need to submit reports to the

permitting authority.

12. Page 15:

1. First paragraph: You might want to note that Congress has provided another $900,000 for

the National Biosolids Partnership in FY 2000.
-48- Report No. 2000-P-10

APPENDIX B

Distribution

Office of the Inspector General

Inspector General

Assistant Inspector General for Audit

Divisional Inspectors General

EPA Headquarters Offices

Agency Followup Official (2710)

Agency Followup Coordinator (2724)

Associate Administrator for Communications, Education and Public Affairs (1701)

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301)

Associate General Counsel, Water Law Office (2355)

Audit Liaisons:

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

 Office of Water

EPA Regional Offices

Regional Administrators

Regional Audit Liaisons

Biosolids Coordinators