OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment

 Evaluation Report

EPA Needs to Reinforce Its

National Pretreatment Program

Report No. 2004-P-00030

Date: September 28, 2004 
Report Contributors: Ira Brass

Linda Fuller

Anthony Chirigotis

Chad Kincheloe

Frank Pelczarski

Elizabeth Grossman

James Haller

David Cofer

Renee McGhee-Lenart

Abbreviations

AMSA Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

OIG Office of Inspector General

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PCS Permit Compliance System

PER Permitting for Environmental Results

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

Cover Photo: Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, Boston, Massachusetts

Photo provided by Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

September 28, 2004

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program

Report No. 2004-P-00030

FROM: Dan Engelberg /s/

Director, Water Issues

Office of Program Evaluation

TO: Benjamin Grumbles

Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of Water

This is our final report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General

(OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This evaluation report contains

findings that describe problems found by the OIG and corrective actions to address these

problems recommended by the OIG. This evaluation report represents the opinion of the OIG

and the findings contained in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Final determinations on matters in this evaluation report will be made by EPA managers in

accordance with established audit resolution procedures. 

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this

report within 90 calendar days of the date of this report. You should include a corrective actions

plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further

release of this report to the public. For your convenience, this report will be available at

http://www.epa.gov/oig. In addition to providing a written copy of your response, please e-mail

an electronic version to Fuller.Linda@epa.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-

0830 or Linda Fuller at (617) 918-1485.

i

Executive Summary

Purpose

 

Preventing industrial pollutants from interfering with wastewater treatment

facility operations or passing through facilities untreated into water bodies are

functions of EPA’s pretreatment program. It is a core part of the Clean Water

Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The

Agency considers the pretreatment program successful in reducing discharges of

harmful pollutants, and this has resulted in less resources and attention being

directed toward this program in recent years. However, toxic pollutants are still

being transferred to sewage treatment plants, and the impact to human health and

the environment of some of these pollutants may still not be known.

Our objectives were to answer the following:

• How effectively have the pretreatment regulations controlled industrial user

discharges?

• What are the differences in how publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

with and without approved pretreatment programs oversee their industrial

users and do these differences affect protection of the plant and receiving

waters?

• How well is EPA maintaining its program gains and addressing future needs

and do EPA’s pretreatment program measures show the program’s progress?

Results in Brief

The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation’s sewer systems that

characterized the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured,

according to EPA published data compiled from information provided by

industrial facilities. Since the middle of the 1990s, there has been little change in

the volume of a broad list of toxic pollutants transferred to POTWs or in the index

of risk associated with these pollutants. As a result, the performance of EPA’s

pretreatment program, which is responsible for controlling these discharges, is

threatened and progress toward achieving the Congress’ Clean Water Act goal of

eliminating toxic discharges that can harm water quality has stalled. The

curtailing of the early gains may be explained in part by two factors: (1)

dischargers that developed systems in response to EPA’s initial program

requirements have not enhanced their pretreatment systems in recent years, and

(2) the rate at which EPA has been issuing effluent guidelines dramatically

declined since 1990.
ii

Our review of 22 POTWs suggests that the pretreatment program should be

extended to at least some of the POTWs without approved programs because,

they reported having encountered more operational problems and were more

likely to be discharging to an impaired water than POTWs with approved

programs. Specifically, the proportion of POTWs with approved pretreatment

programs that experienced a pass through/interference event (17 percent) was less

than half the proportion of POTWs without approved programs (40 percent). The

difference between the proportion of POTWs with approved programs that

discharged to an impaired water (25 percent) was even smaller compared to the

proportion of POTWs without approved programs that discharged to an impaired

water (60 percent). One possible explanation is that EPA Regions and State

agencies that are supposed to act as control authorities for POTWs without

approved programs do not have standards for overseeing industrial users

discharging to these POTWs. Although EPA was working on necessary guidance

for these Regions and States, the project was put on hold due to other priorities. 

Without more visible leadership from Headquarters, improved programmatic

information, and the adoption of results-based performance measures, EPA’s

pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it made in its early years. The

leveling off of those early gains, coinciding with EPA’s diminishing program

emphasis, paints a picture of a program at risk. Headquarters has delayed

finalizing guides and regulations intended to update the pretreatment program by

not allocating sufficient resources or requesting budget increases for additional

pretreatment resources. Additionally, results-based performance measures on

pretreatment program activities have not been developed partially due to the lack

of adequate, accessible data. As a result, POTWs’ pretreatment programs may

not be as effective in protecting environmental quality or worker health and safety

as they could be, and EPA cannot assess the effectiveness of its pretreatment

program. 

Recommendations

We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water take stock of

the pretreatment program by determining a meaningful performance measure that

entails continued improvement, establishing a mechanism to achieve that goal,

and, lastly, acquiring additional resources to implement necessary programmatic

improvements. Specifically, staff should be directed to finalize necessary

guidance, set oversight standards for Regions and States designated as control

authorities, encourage the incorporation of pretreatment oversight responsibilities

in the NPDES permits of POTWs without approved programs as circumstances

allow, and promote training opportunities. The Acting Assistant Administrator

should direct staff to evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to

enable it to make further reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk. The

additional funding should be requested in the next funding cycle.
iii

Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation

In an August 30, 2004 response to our draft report, the Acting Assistant

Administrator for Water acknowledged our findings that environmental benefits

are derived from the POTWs’ implementation of the pretreatment program. The

Acting Assistant Administrator stated that the Office of Water was in the process

of conducting the most comprehensive assessment of the NPDES Program in its

30-year history (Permitting for Environmental Results, or PER Strategy) and that

one component of its resulting strategy would help to address several of our

recommendations. We have summarized the Agency’s response and our

comments at the end of each chapter. The Acting Assistant Administrator’s

memorandum is attached as Appendix G. A clarification attachment provided by

the Agency is on file at the Office of Inspector General. An exit conference was

held on September 2, 2004.

The Office of Water’s efforts to assess and improve its NPDES program as part of

its PER Strategy are commendable. Since action for carrying out several of our

recommendations is dependent on completion of this strategy, we are revising our

recommendations to provide milestone dates for action and quarterly progress

reports for actions not completed within 90 days of report issuance. We have also

made other revisions as appropriate based on the Agency’s clarification

document. 
iv
v

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................... i

Chapters

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

2 Pretreatment Program Gains Have Leveled Off .................... 5

3 More POTWs Need to Adopt National 

Pretreatment Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Pretreatment Program Needs Improved Direction,

Data, and Performance Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendices

A Details on Scope and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B Basic Pretreatment Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

C Oversight of Industrial Users by POTWs 

Without Approved EPA Pretreatment Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

D Examples of Enforcement Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

E Gaps in Industrial User Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

F POTW Industrial Pollutant Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

G Agency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

H Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The focus of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clean water program is

reducing pollutant loadings. There are hundreds of thousands of industrial users

in the United States, and many may discharge toxic pollutants to wastewater

facilities. Preventing industrial pollutants from interfering with wastewater

treatment facility operations or passing through facilities untreated to water

bodies are functions of EPA’s National Pretreatment Program, a core part of the

Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

program.

One of the 2003 Office of Water priorities is to “conserve the gains of the last

30 years.” The Agency considers the pretreatment program successful in

reducing discharges of harmful pollutants to wastewater facilities and their

receiving waters. This success has resulted in less resources and attention

directed toward this program in recent years, even though toxic pollutants are still

being transferred to sewage treatment plants.

Our objectives were to answer the following:

• How effectively have the pretreatment regulations controlled industrial user

discharges?

• What are the differences in how publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

with and without approved pretreatment programs oversee their industrial

users and do these differences affect protection of the plant and receiving

waters?

• How well is EPA maintaining its program gains and addressing future needs

and do EPA’s pretreatment program measures show the program’s progress?

Background

Following scenes of dying fish and burning rivers in the 1950s and 1960s,

Congress in 1972 passed the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the integrity

of the nation’s waters. EPA established the NPDES program to achieve these

goals. The program regulates facilities such as POTWs, which discharge directly

to surface waters.
2

National Pretreatment Program Objectives

• Prevent interference with POTW operations

• Prevent the pass through of pollutants

• Improve biosolids recycling and reuse

opportunities

Figure 1(A) 

In addition to receiving wastewater from homes, POTWs may also receive

industrial waste from manufacturing sources. Because industrial waste can

disrupt a POTW’s operations (“interference”) or pollute the POTW’s receiving

water and cause an NPDES

violation (“pass through”), the

pretreatment program was

established as a component of the

NPDES program to control these

discharges. The general

pretreatment regulation

promulgated on June 26, 1978,

required certain POTWs to

develop pretreatment programs to

control the introduction of

industrial wastes into POTWs. These program requirements are included in the

POTW’s NPDES permit. The National Pretreatment Program objectives are in

Figure 1(A). 

The pretreatment program is implemented through a partnership of EPA, State

agencies, and POTWs. POTWs usually have the prime responsibility for

implementing and enforcing the program, and are known as “control authorities.” 

EPA Regions or a State agency authorized to administer pretreatment programs

approve a POTW’s pretreatment program are known as “approval authorities.” 

Currently, there are approximately 1,500 approved pretreatment programs. EPA

Regions or State agencies may also act as control authorities if POTWs are

unauthorized or the agency deems it more efficient to administer the program. 

Regions and States include pretreatment program requirements as part of a

POTW’s NPDES permit; these permits are the mechanism used to regulate

POTW discharges to surface waters.

Control authorities must implement their program in accordance with

pretreatment regulations. An approved pretreatment program includes the

following basic program elements: 

• Legal authority.

• Procedures for maintaining and updating an inventory, issuing permits, and

conducting inspections and sampling.

• Developing and updating local limits.

• Developing and implementing an Enforcement Response Plan.

• Submitting a list of significant industrial users (usually as part of the annual

pretreatment report.

Control authorities should also ensure that their industrial users are following

appropriate discharge standards, as noted in Table 1.1:
3

Table 1.1: Discharge Standards

Pretreatment Standard Applicable Industrial User

Prohibited Discharge Standard:

Prohibit the discharge of substances that

could cause:

• fire or explosions,

• corrosive structural damage,

• obstruction of flow,

• toxic vapors, or

• other harmful effects.

All industrial users subject or not to

any other National, State, or local

requirements.

Categorical Standards:

National, uniform, technology-based standards. Specific industrial groups.

Local Limits:

Address specific needs and concerns of

the POTW and its receiving water.

Typically, all industrial users

discharging to the POTW.

Scope and Methodology

We reviewed data from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory and Permit Compliance

Systems, as well as annual pretreatment reports prepared by POTWs, to determine

trends in transfers of pollutants. We interviewed staff from EPA, State agencies,

and POTWs to evaluate program oversight and measurement. Our field work was

conducted from March 21, 2003, to February 27, 2004, in accordance with

Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United

States. Additional details on our scope and methodology can be found in

Appendix A. No recent audit or evaluation reports have been issued on EPA’s

National Pretreatment Program.
4
5

Chapter 2

Pretreatment Program Gains Have Leveled Off

The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation’s sewer systems that

characterized the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured

according to EPA published data compiled from information provided by

industrial facilities. Changes in the amount of pollution that industrial users

discharge into sewers is a good indication of how successful this program has

been. Measured by volume as well as an index of risk associated with a broad list

of toxic pollutants, there has been little change since the middle of the 1990s. As

a result, the performance of EPA’s pretreatment program, which is responsible for

controlling these discharges, is threatened and progress toward achieving the

Congress’ Clean Water Act goal of eliminating toxic discharges that can harm

water quality has stalled. The curtailing of the early gains may be explained in

part by two factors: (1) dischargers that developed systems in response to EPA’s

initial program requirements have not enhanced their pretreatment systems in

recent years, and (2) the rate at which EPA has been issuing effluent guidelines

dramatically declined since 1990.

Trends in Industrial User Discharges

We determined the pretreatment program’s progress in reducing industrial user

discharges on a national basis using EPA’s Toxic Chemical Release Inventory

System [i.e., Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)]. This is a publicly available

database that contains information on toxic chemical releases provided by certain

industry groups. We also determined the trends in relative risk of these pollutants

using EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators. 

Following are charts detailing our various TRI analyses. However, it should also

be noted that the TRI database is subject to error. OIG Report No. 2004-P-00004,

EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Industrial Reporting to the Toxics Release

Inventory System, February 2, 2004, identified TRI reporting errors by industries

that significantly altered our initial conclusions. The charts presented include our

corrections. Additionally, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance issued The National Nitrate Compliance Initiative in April 2002 which

noted that many facilities were not reporting the transfer of nitrates to TRI. 

According to EPA, the initiative improved reporting from 60 to 98 percent in

recent years. This problem did not affect our final analysis since we subtracted

nitrates. 
6

Trends in Pollutant Transfers to POTWs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Pounds in Millions

1987 Original Pollutants Pollutants added to TRI in 1995

Figure 2(A): Transfer of pollutants to POTWs increased starting in 1995.

Trends in Discharges to POTWs

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Pounds

Loadings Normalized by Manufacturing

Figure 2(B): Transfers leveled off since 1995 without nitrates even when

economy considered.

Transfer of Pollutants

The transfer of pollutants to POTWs decreased by approximately 50 percent from

1987 to 1995, then climbed up again by approximately 100 percent from1995 to

2001. Figure 2(A) shows that the increase was the result of requirements for the

reporting of additional pollutants starting in 1995. Pollutants reported

consistently from 1987 to 2001 show a leveling off in transfers since 1995. 

For pollutants added since 1995, we found another subset to explain the increase. 

Nitrate compounds – a pollutant that POTWs incidentally treat – were responsible

for the significant increase in transfers since 1995. Figure 2(B) shows that when

we removed nitrate compounds from the table, there is a leveling off of transfers. 

Figure 2(B) also shows that trends for transfers were mirrored by manufacturing

activity, suggesting that the decreases and leveling off of transfers were not the

result of

decreased

productivity. In

fact, the 2001

Annual Survey of

Manufacturers

reports that

manufacturing

activity increased

from 1987 to

2001. 

Risk
7

"Risk" Due to T RI Discharges to POT Ws

(original pollutants)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Factors in Millions

Figure 2(C): Risk reduced since 1987.

After a significant decrease from 1987 to1988, the risk associated with pollutants

tracked in TRI since 1987 shows no apparent trend, while the risk associated with

pollutants added since 1995 has been increasing. We used EPA’s Risk-Screening

Environmental Indicators to assess the potential impact related to oral ingestion

toxicity of the industrial releases to POTWs. Our analysis considered the

following information: the amount of chemical released, the toxicity of the

chemical, its fate, and transport through the environment.

Figure 2(C) shows that the risk associated with the 1987 chemicals was reduced

by 60 percent from 1987 to 1988. Risk showed a further decrease in 1995, with

some increases in 1998, 1999, and 2001. This figure does not include individual

discharges that could materially affect the results of our review (such as a single

plant in Tennessee discharging thorium dioxide, which significantly increased the

risk during 1995 and 1996; thorium dioxide is a radioactive substance that has the

highest toxicity weight among the TRI pollutants).

Our analysis of the 1995 pollutants showed the risk of these pollutants increasing

even when we eliminated single facilities discharging highly toxic pollutants that

caused significant increases in 2000 and 2001. See Figure 2(D).
8

Trends in Risk 

(minus bromine, dimethylamine, and nitrapyrin)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Factors in Millions 

Figure 2(D): Risk associated with 1995 pollutants increased.

Enforcement of Regulations as Motivating Factor

The significant drop in the transfer of pollutants during the late 1980s may be

explained in part because EPA issued most of it regulations during the 1970s and

1980s. Our sample of industrial users indicated that most were still using their

original pretreatment systems from this period. 

In 1997, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water attributed the progress made in

improving water quality as the result of technology-based effluent guidelines

implemented through the NPDES program, and the Federally funded construction

of sewage treatment plants. Effluent guidelines are industrial water pollution

control regulations for facilities discharging directly to surface waters and

indirectly to POTWs. “Categorical standards” are issued for indirect dischargers

through the National Pretreatment Program. Prior to 1991, when there was the

first drop in transfers, EPA had issued 49 effluent guidelines; since that time to

1999, only 7 new and revised effluent guidelines were issued. This may explain

the initially significant drop in pollutant transfers and then a leveling off period.

Our interviews with representatives from 16 companies showed that companies

installed pretreatment systems in response to regulations, and most maintain

original systems going back to the 1980s. Of the 16 companies, 14 have a

pretreatment process. Of those 14:

• One said their pretreatment system went back to the 1970s.

• Eight said their system went back to the 1980s.

• One said their system went back to 1991.

• Three said their system was approximately 10 or less years old.

• One did not know the age of the system.
9

Of the 10 companies which knew their system was 10 or more years old, one

made a change in 2001 to meet new categorical regulations and another made a

change to prevent a Safe Drinking Water Act violation. Due to the age of the

industrial users’ pretreatment systems and the length of service of the staff

contacted, not everyone could explain why their companies installed pretreatment

systems. However six did indicate that their pretreatment systems were required

by their POTWs and one by the Clean Water Act.

Representatives indicated regulations certainly had an impact on actions taken. 

For example:

• A representative for a Minnesota firm indicated that regulations provided the

impetus for companies to change operations because the financial staff would

otherwise question the purchase of equipment not contributing to profit. The

official noted the company still uses tin/lead solder because it is requested by

their customers and will continue to use it unless it becomes illegal. 

• A representative for an Indiana firm stated that what finally motivated the

company to eliminate the use of chromium was to address a Safe Drinking

Water Act violation caused by its discharge of fluoride to its local POTW. 

This company and others were allowed to discharge fluoride to the POTW in

accordance with the local pretreatment program. However, the fluoride was

discovered downstream to be in excess of drinking water standards. This

Indiana firm was subsequently awarded the 2002 Indiana Governor’s Awards

for Environmental Excellence for eliminating the chromate conversion

coating process that resulted in fluoride discharges. According to the local

POTW superintendent, having a pretreatment program in place made it easier

to identify the polluting companies, require monitoring, and work with the

firm.

Conclusion

The reduction in transfers of toxic pollutants to POTWs has not been reduced

since the mid 1990s. The reduction of risk for oral ingestion for some of these

pollutants shows no apparent trend indicative of progress. Significant reductions

in transfers were seen in prior years when EPA was active in establishing its

pretreatment program and issuing numerous effluent guidelines. EPA needs to

take stock of its pretreatment program to determine how it will eventually fully

meet Congress’ goal of the elimination of toxic discharges to the nation’s waters. 

Otherwise, wastewater treatment facilities remain vulnerable to industrial waste

discharges that can disrupt plant operations or pass through to receiving waters,

resulting in poor water quality and potential harm to human health and the

environment. 
10

Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation

The Agency noted that many reportable pollutants are able to be treated by typical

POTW biological processes and the receipt of large transfers of these pollutant

may be somewhat misleading. They suggested that an analysis of incompatible

pollutants (metals, cyanide, and organics) that are the focus of the pretreatment

program would be a better assessment of the effectiveness of the pretreatment

program. The Agency also believed that our conclusion did not adequately note

the changes in TRI reporting requirements or link the risk for oral ingestion of

indirectly discharged industrial process wastewater to the disruption of POTW

operations.

Our review was broad in nature to give an overall picture of EPA’s efforts to

implement its pretreatment program. It was not our intent to provide detailed

reviews of particular industries or pollutants. We believe that our review shows

that when EPA applied resources to implementing its pretreatment program,

reductions in transfers of toxic pollutants resulted. As the program received less

attention and resources, those results leveled off. The Office of Water may want

to conduct on its own the further analyses it suggested as part of its development

of performance measures or to identify areas needing additional attention.

While our review did include transfers from new industrial sectors and lowered

reporting thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals, these differences

did not significantly impact our figures. Our conclusion regarding the risk for

oral ingestion does not make a link to the disruption of POTW operations. We

are only stating that we do not see any indications of reduced pollutant toxicity. 
11

Chapter 3

More POTWs Need to Adopt National Pretreatment

Programs

Our review of 22 POTWs suggests that the pretreatment program should be

extended to at least some of the POTWs without approved programs because,

they reported having encountered more operational problems and were more

likely to be discharging to an impaired waters than POTWs with approved

programs. Specifically,

• The proportion of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs that

experienced a pass through/interference event (17 percent) was less than half

the proportion of POTWs without approved programs (40 percent). 

• The difference between the proportion of POTWs with approved programs

that discharged to an impaired water (25 percent) was even smaller compared

to the proportion of POTWs without approved programs that discharged to an

impaired water (60 percent). 

One possible explanation is that EPA Regions and State agencies that are

supposed to act as control authorities for POTWs without approved programs do

not have standards for overseeing industrial users discharging to these POTWs. 

Although EPA was working on necessary guidance for these Regions and States,

the project was put on hold due to other priorities. Some Regional staff also

indicated that such POTWs receive less of a priority because they are small and

their discharge probably will not have a significant impact on the receiving

waters. However, our observation that a significant number of POTWs without

pretreatment programs discharge into waterbodies that fail to meet water quality

standards suggests that some of these systems would benefit from additional

controls similar to those imposed on POTWs with pretreatment programs. Also,

industries in such communities may be receiving an unfair advantage over their

competitors that receive more monitoring.

POTWs with Pretreatment Programs More Likely to Meet Standards 

With some exceptions, the 12 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs we

contacted indicated that they administer their programs in accordance with EPA

pretreatment regulations. Such consistency derives from these POTWs having

standard guidance to follow and being subject to EPA and State audits that

reinforce standards. For the 10 POTWs contacted that did not have pretreatment

programs, 6 of the POTWs nonetheless carried out program elements comparably
12

to POTWs with approved programs. Those six POTWs had pretreatment program

requirements included in their NPDES permits by State agencies.

Table 3.1 compares how well POTWs from both the approved and non-approved

pretreatment groups met minimum pretreatment standards. Using EPA’s 1999

guide, Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, as a model, we

identified six basic elements needed to administer an approved pretreatment

program. Our use of the phrase “required program element” differs slightly from

EPA’s use of the phrase identified on page 2. Our review emphasized POTW’s

implementation of the program; we did not evaluate legal authority or funding. 

We obtained the respondents’ information from questionnaires and site visits to

the POTWs, Regions, and State agencies. For the POTWs visited, we also

reviewed, if available, their annual pretreatment reports, Regional/State audit

reports, and other related documents. The six elements are listed in Table 3.1.

Further details on each of the six elements, including the importance of each and

findings, are in Appendix B; a breakdown on actions taken for each location by

element are in Appendix C. 

Table 3.1: Comparison of POTWs in Meeting Minimum Pretreatment Standards

 Required

 Program Element

Criteria

(40 CFR Section)

Approved

Programs

(12 Respondents)

Non-approved

Programs 

(10 Respondents)

Identify industrial users §403.8(f)(2)(I) 100% 80%

Develop Local Limits §403.8(f)(4) and

122.21(j)(4)

83.3% * 60%

Issue individual permits to

significant industrial users

§403.8(f)(1)(iii) 100% 50%

Inspect and sample industrial

users annually at a minimum

§403.8(f)(2)(v)

 - Inspect 100% 70%

 - Sample 100% 50%

Have approved Enforcement

Response Plans

§403.8(f)(5) 91.7% Not Applicable

Submit Annual Pretreatment

Report

§403.12(I) 100% 70%

* The remaining two POTWs were developing local limits.

For four of the required program elements (issuing individual permits to

significant industrial users, inspecting and sampling industrial users, having

approved enforcement response plans, and submitting annual pretreatment

reports), the probability that POTWs with approved program would meet these

minimum standards if program approval made no difference is less than 0.05. For

two of the seven required program elements (identifying industrial users and
13

developing local limits), the probability that POTWs with approved plans would

have these minimum standards if program approval made no difference

approaches statistical significance (p < 0.083). This means that for the 22

POTWs reviewed, having an approved plan is statistically, significantly more

likely to result in POTWs meeting at least some of the minimum standards than if

there were no approved program.

The applicability of this finding to the entire population of POTWs nationwide is

limited. This is due, in part, to the small sample size and in part to the selection

criteria used to choose POTWs for this study. While most of the POTWs were

selected at random within specific Regions, one POTW with an approved

program was selected because EPA officials described it as a “good” program. 

Another POTW without an approved program was selected because EPA

indicated the POTW was having problems. Even when these two facilities are

excluded from the analysis, however, five of the applicable criteria approach or

achieve statistical significance (p < 0.63). With these two POTWs excluded from

the analysis, the identification of industrial users is the only minimum standard

likely to be met regardless of whether or not a facility has an approved program. 

For our selected POTWs, we attempted to determine what benefits a POTW can

derive from maintaining an approved pretreatment program by comparing the

reported number of pass through/interference events between the approved/nonapproved POTWs and identifying which POTWs discharged to an impaired

water. Table 3.2 summarizes the results of our questionnaire responses and our

review of EPA’s WATERS data base reporting water bodies identified as being

on the State 303(d) impaired water list. Information on the WATERS data base

has limitations. States only report 303(d) impairments for assessed waterbodies,

and most waterbodies are not assessed. Additionally, further analyses should be

done before determining an actual causal relationship between the POTW source

and the impaired waters. However, given the limitations in data availability, we

believe our analysis can provide a general indication of results.

Table 3.2: Summary - Pass Through/Interference, Impaired Waters

12 POTWs With

Approved Programs

10 POTWs Without

Approved Programs

No. of

POTWs

Percentage

of Total

No. of

POTWs

Percentage

of Total

Reported pass through/interference

within past 2 years

2 17% 4 40%

Discharging to 303(d) impaired water 3 25% 6 60%
14

The probability that 17 percent or fewer of the POTWs with approved programs

would experience a pass through/interference event in the past two years if having

an approved program made no difference is 0.83. The probability that 25 percent

or fewer of the POTWs with approved programs would discharge to an impaired

water is 0.015. This indicates that for the 22 POTWs selected, having an

approved program has an effect on whether or not a POTW will experience a pass

through/interference event or discharge to an impaired water.

When the two POTWs described above are excluded from the analysis, having an

approved program does not appear to affect whether a facility will experience a

pass through/interference event (p = 0.234), but having an approved program is

still significantly less likely to result in a POTW discharging to an impaired water

(p = 0.013). 

Waters on the 303(d) list may be impaired from sources other than POTWs

passing industrial or non-industrial pollutants. Even when industrial pollutants

are reported as the cause, the source of impairment is often not reported, so it is

not easy to draw a direct correlation between an impaired water and a POTW’s

pretreatment program. For POTWs with approved programs, two of the three

receiving waters were impaired due to metals and other pollutants; for POTWs

without approved programs, three of the six waters were impaired due to metals

and other pollutants. EPA’s WATERS database provided the source of

impairment for only one of the nine impaired receiving waters.

POTW Program Implementation Can Be Improved for Two Elements

While the results of our survey questionnaire indicated general consistency in

implementation for POTWs with approved programs, our review of State audit

reports and interviews with POTW staff indicated that the elements of identifying

industrial users and enforcement could be improved especially for smaller sized

POTWs. EPA can help these POTWs by expanding the training it already

provides and ensuring that there are adequate resources available to conduct

audits of POTW pretreatment programs.

Identifying Industrial Users

Small to medium-sized POTWs indicated that classifying industries was

sometimes difficult because the regulations may be too complex to understand. 

For example, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission reported in

its audit of Brenham, Texas, a small-sized POTW, that it continued to experience

difficulties in making categorical determinations. By not properly classifying

industrial users, appropriate permits were not issued and enforcement taken. 

Other pretreatment coordinators at POTWs agreed that it can be difficult to stay 

current with regulations and to apply them, particularly in determining whether an
15

industry is a categorical industrial user.

Enforcement

Review of annual pretreatment reports to determine whether POTWs were

escalating enforcement actions (e.g., administrative orders, fines, etc.) disclosed

that while the two selected large-sized POTWs reviewed showed evidence of

escalating enforcement, the medium to small-sized POTWs varied in their efforts. 

POTWs without approved programs are not required to develop Enforcement

Response Plans and may not have authority to take formal enforcement actions. 

All 10 POTWs contacted stated they notify industrial users of any violations and

usually resolve any issues by phone, meeting, or mail, but few indicated they

escalate action to a higher level. Only three indicated that formal actions such as

Administrative Orders had been issued. Examples on enforcement issues are in

Appendix D.

Training

In addition to guidance, training is a way to promote program consistency. EPA

Headquarters provides basic and advanced pretreatment classes nationally. Some

of the Regions also provide pretreatment training, as do most of our selected

States. However, three of the six States, as well as some POTW officials, said

EPA should provide more training, and one also recommended that EPA develop

pro forma documents to assist POTWs in developing local limits. These

responses indicate that EPA needs to more clearly communicate to POTWs what

training is available. In addition, EPA may want to look into providing on-line

training.

Audits

Regional and State audits of POTW-approved pretreatment programs ensure that

these programs are maintaining standards and provide indirect scrutiny of

industrial users. EPA’s Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal

was for Regions and States to both audit 100 percent of programs over a 5-year

period (20 percent is the Annual Performance Goal within GPRA measures). 

EPA’s Office of Water could provide only limited data on attainment of this goal,

which shows that not all the Regions/States were meeting the GPRA goal. For

fiscal years 2000 and 2002, six Regions conducted audits of at least 20 percent of

their approved programs. Regions 1, 5, 9, and 10 did not meet the goal for fiscal

year 2000, while Regions 1, 3, 4, and 10 did not meet it for 2002. Since Regions

1 and 10 did not conduct 20 percent of the audits for either year, there is the

possibility that they may not meet the 100-percent goal over a 5-year period. 

Region 1's pretreatment coordinator had written in a 1999 memorandum to

Headquarters that he could not meet the 20 percent annual goal because resources

had been reduced from six full-time equivalents in 1995 to one by 1999.
16

Regional and State Support and Oversight Can Be Improved for

POTWs Without Approved Programs

Regions and State Agencies support POTWs that have approved programs by

providing various training opportunities and overseeing their activities with

audits, and this helps to promote greater national consistency. We found less

consistency in support of POTWs without approved programs. Regions and

States cannot always oversee industrial users discharging to POTWs without

approved programs and such POTWs may or may not be required by their State or

Region to oversee their industrial users. To ensure greater national consistency,

EPA needs to finalize the guidance it has put on hold to address this area.

Regions and State Agencies as Control Authorities 

Regions and State Agencies, as control authorities, are not required to implement

their activities at the same frequency as imposed on municipalities who

implement their approved programs. We found that few of those we reviewed

inspected or sampled industrial users in accordance with standards required of

POTWs. This is due to the large universe of industrial users spread throughout a

State and the limited amount of State and Regional staff. If Regions or States are

not adequately monitoring these industrial users, their operations and workers are

vulnerable to toxic discharges causing disruptions and injury. Some States have

recognized their limitations and have included oversight responsibilities in these

POTWs’ NPDES permits. EPA had been working on developing guidance for

overseeing categorical and significant industrial users discharging to POTWs

without approved programs, but has put it off due to other priorities. 

Appendix E shows how selected EPA Regions and State Agencies oversee

industrial users when they are designated as the control authority. Except for

New Jersey and Ohio, Regions and States do not inspect and sample in

accordance with pretreatment standards required for POTWs.

We found that States added pretreatment program requirements in the NPDES

permits of POTWs without approved EPA pretreatment programs. This is one

way to address the States’ ability to adequately oversee the great number of

significant industrial users discharging to POTWs without approved programs. 

EPA does not know how many significant industrial users discharge to POTWs

without approved programs, but has determined that over 28,000 significant

industrial users (of which approximately 13,000 are categorical industrial users)

discharge to POTWs with approved programs. This figure gives an indication of

how vast the universe is for monitoring industrial users. 

As an example, the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality staff estimated

that there are a potential 1,750 industrial users discharging to POTWs without
17

approved programs, of which only 24 (or 1.4 percent) are reporting to the State. 

State officials advised us that when Region 6 transferred pretreatment program

delegation to the State in 1998, categorical industrial users discharging to POTWs

without approved pretreatment programs were not adequately identified. The

State has been in the process of identifying these industrial users since 1998.

States Require POTWs Without Approved Programs to Assume

Oversight Responsibilities

Table 3.1 shows that POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are more

likely to carry out minimum pretreatment programs. However, further analysis of

our 10 POTWs without approved programs showed that six of these POTWs had

pretreatment oversight responsibilities included in their NPDES permits by the

State. Each of these six POTWs carried out the program elements with few

exceptions (See Appendix C). All six stated they had developed local limits,

which is better than the 10 of 12 selected POTWs with approved programs. Only

one of the six (17 percent) experienced a pass through event, which is the same

observed among approved program groups (also 17 percent). Two of the six (33

percent) discharge to an impaired water compared to three of the 12 (25 percent)

for the approved group.

Of the remaining four POTWs that did not have any pretreatment program

requirements, few carried out all the program elements. None of the four had

developed local limits. Three of the four experienced a pass through/interference

event and all four discharged to an impaired water (see Appendix C).

When appropriate, requiring POTWs to assume more oversight activities appears

to be beneficial to both the Regions/States as well as the POTW. Nonetheless, the

Regions and States will still need to provide oversight to ensure that appropriate

formal enforcement is taken. Requiring these POTWs to submit an annual

pretreatment report, including information on violators, could alert State and

Regional officials of potential enforcement issues. 

Conclusion

Based on our study of 22 POTWs, we conclude that POTWs do not develop

pretreatment programs to control their industrial users unless required by EPA or

a State Agency. Our study shows POTWs with approved pretreatment programs

are more likely to meet most of the minimum program requirements than POTWs

without approved programs. These POTWs are also less likely to experience pass

through/interference events and to discharge to an impaired water compared to

POTWs without approved programs. Although this study does not permit us to

determine cause and effect, it is reasonable to believe that meeting the minimum

program standards of an approved pretreatment program is likely to result in

fewer pass through/interference events. We cannot link the cause of an impaired
18

water body to a POTW’s implementation of a pretreatment program. However,

our sampled POTWs without approved programs were more likely to discharge to

an impaired water indicating a need for such POTWs to be concerned with the

quality of their discharge. As a result, we believe POTWs without approved

pretreatment programs should be encouraged to oversee their industrial users. 

Especially, since we found that EPA Regions and States acting as control

authorities cannot always oversee to the same level as POTWs with approved

pretreatment programs. EPA needs to complete its guide on overseeing industrial

users discharging to POTWs without approved pretreatment programs. However,

even when POTWs assume greater oversight responsibilities, EPA and States

must still play a role in ensuring that POTWs understand regulations, which are

sometimes complex, and that POTWs are taking appropriate enforcement actions.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water direct staff to:

 3.1 Finalize its guidance on regulating industrial users discharging to a POTW

without an approved program and provide milestones for doing so to the

OIG. This guidance should provide recommended frequency of various

oversight activities such as inspections and sampling. If the Office of

Water cannot finalize its guidance within 90 days of report issuance, it

should provide quarterly progress reports to the OIG until this action is

complete.

 3.2 For Regions and States unable to follow EPA’s guidance for basic

oversight of industrial users discharging to POTWs without approved

programs, encourage the Regions/States to have these POTWs assume

oversight responsibilities as part of their NPDES permit requirements.

 3.3 Encourage Regions/States to have POTWs without approved programs

that are conducting oversight responsibilities to report on an annual basis

violations and enforcement action taken to their control/approval

authority.

 3.4 Promote training opportunities to all POTWs by determining: a) the

POTWs’ ability to access information on EPA’s website and b) the types

of training POTWs need.

Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation

The Office of Water staff agreed that guidance on tracking, overseeing, and

controlling significant industrial users is important to ensure achievement of the
19

pretreatment program’s goals. As part of its comprehensive assessment of the

NPDES program, the Office of Water will document Regional and State oversight

capabilities and develop a “toolbox” based on how Regions and States are

overseeing industrial users discharging to POTWs without approved pretreatment

programs. The toolbox, along with the development of standardized accounting

of these significant industrial users will assist in future oversight. 

The Office of Water also stated that the pretreatment regulations do not impose

minimum inspection or sampling frequencies on EPA Regions and States in either

their roles as Approval or Control Authorities.

The Office of Water believed that reporting of significant industrial user problems

in NPDES permit applications and categorical industrial user reporting of noncompliance is adequate for notifying Regional/State control agencies of

violations. It was additionally pointed out that POTWs without approved

pretreatment programs do not always have enforcement authority and that it is the

responsibility of the permitting authority to increase reporting beyond the current

regulations, determined on a case-by-case basis.

The Office of Water agreed that training is key to maintaining pretreatment

program knowledge and has been discussing with Regions/States the need for

improved publicity of available training.

Our finding indicated that pretreatment programs do benefit POTWs and their

receiving waters. First, we believe that EPA should set standards for

Regions/States acting as control authorities; they should set an example to

POTWs. Second, in cases where the Regions/States cannot meet this standard,

they should encourage the Regions/States to allow POTWs without approved

programs to assume oversight responsibilities. We found State agencies have

taken the initiative in expanding the benefits of the pretreatment program to

POTWs that normally would not be candidates for approved program status. 

However, we believe EPA should lead the effort to expand this protection by

issuing guidance documents encouraging permitting agencies to do so. EPA’s

lead should provide for more national consistency. 

When POTWs without approved programs assume pretreatment oversight

responsibilities, they should also be required to submit annual reports on

violations and enforcement action for two reasons. 1) Because such POTWs may

not have enforcement authority, the control agency needs to be aware of

enforcement activity. 2) Current reporting mechanism do not ensure that the

control authority receives timely and objective information to ensure that timely

and appropriate enforcement has occurred. NPDES permit applications that

identify problems with significant industrial users are reviewed at best every four

and one-half years. With the current backlog, reviews are probably taking longer. 

Reporting by categorical industrial users is a self-reporting mechanism. 
20
21

Chapter 4

Pretreatment Program Needs Improved Direction,

Data, and Performance Measures

Without more visible leadership from Headquarters, improved programmatic

information, and the adoption of results-based performance measures, EPA’s

pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it made in its early years. The

leveling off of those early gains, along with EPA’s diminished emphasis on the

program, paints a picture of a program at risk. Headquarters has delayed

finalizing guides and regulations intended to update the pretreatment program by

not allocating sufficient resources to complete these projects because resources

were assigned to newer, developing programs such as homeland security and

storm water. However, EPA did not request additional funding to cover the needs

of its pretreatment program. As a result, POTWs’ pretreatment programs may

not be as effective in protecting environmental quality and worker health and

safety as they could be, and EPA cannot assess the effectiveness of its

pretreatment program.

Developing a High Performance Organization Evaluated

In evaluating how well EPA is maintaining pretreatment program gains and

addressing future needs, we used criteria from GPRA, the Malcolm Baldrige

Award Program, and EPA. Specifically, based on what we were reviewing, we

evaluated EPA’s performance in three of the seven key areas based on the

Baldrige program’s criteria: leadership, information and analysis, and

performance results.

EPA Can Improve Leadership

EPA can improve its leadership functions – such as modifying regulations,

developing technical guidance, and overseeing program implementation – by

ensuring national consistency. Responses from Regions, States, POTWs, and

other stakeholders indicated that EPA Headquarters was not setting pretreatment

program direction or providing sufficient technical guidance and training. 

EPA devotes time and resources to developing its customer relationships, such as

sponsoring national conferences, but it has not assigned the resources necessary to

complete the tasks that could address some customer needs. According to EPA’s

February 1999 Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, Headquarters

responsibilities include overseeing program implementation at all levels,

developing and modifying program regulations, developing policies to clarify and

further define the program, and developing technical guidance for program
22

implementation. EPA began projects to further develop and modify its

pretreatment program, but in recent years has not devoted sufficient resources to

complete the projects, as shown by the following examples. For the period, 1995

to 2000, EPA did not request additional funding for its pretreatment program.

• In 1995, the Office of Water developed options and a basic plan in response to

the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies’ (AMSA’s) concern of

excessive administrative burdens. EPA issued its proposed streamlining rule

in 1999 but had still not finalized it by 2004. 

• EPA issued guidance in 1987 to assist POTWs to develop local limits. In

1997, the Agency started work to revise this guidance because the 1987

inhibition and removal efficiency data did not reflect the current diversity of

POTW wastewater treatment utilized. The guide was finalized in July 2004. 

• EPA formed a workgroup in 2000 to address industrial user discharging to

POTWs without approved pretreatment programs. The group started to

develop guidance 2001, but that work has been put on hold. 

• Updating guidance on distinguishing industries subject to New Source versus

Existing Source standards has also been put on hold. Industries that

significantly change their process may be considered New Sources and need

to meet stricter discharge limits.

The following table summarizes responses from 10 Regions and 6 States to an

open-ended question on how EPA could improve its pretreatment program. 

Table 4.1: Regional and State Recommendations for Improvement

Recommended Improvement Region State

More resources 9 2

Consistency in interpreting rules/regulations 4

Need Headquarters leadership on categorical determinations 3 4

Finalize various guidance/regulations 3 3

Create database/Permit Compliance System modernization 3

Provide more training opportunities 3

Review program for new/developing issues 2

Increase oversight and assistance on core requirements 2

Develop pretreatment program measures 2

Improve communication among Headquarters offices 2

Develop a pleadings policy, higher administrative authority 1

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

Identify criminal violations and support criminal investigations 1
23

The 2004 Baldrige criteria provide a description of leadership as setting

directions, values, and expectations while balancing the needs of all stakeholders. 

The Regional and State responses stressed a need for national consistency. 

National consistency was also identified as a priority goal by Regional and State

pretreatment coordinators during the 2003 EPA National Pretreatment

Conference. 

Better Information and Analysis Needed

EPA does not have the information systems necessary to effectively measure,

analyze, demonstrate, and improve program performance. EPA collects influent,

effluent, and biosolids data, but it is not uniformly entered into EPA’s Permit

Compliance System (PCS). Also, because EPA has not established results-based

measures for its pretreatment program (as noted in the next section), data

collection and systems are not geared toward providing EPA with an analysis of

program progress. Without sufficient data to show the gains made by its

pretreatment program, EPA leaves this program vulnerable to future budget cuts.

Our efforts to utilize PCS and annual pretreatment reports prepared by POTWs to

determine trends in discharges of metals to and from 10 POTWs were largely

unsuccessful (see Appendix F). We found that PCS was not a good source of data

for evaluating trends for industrial pollutants because: (1) only 3 of the 10

Regions input influent data into PCS; (2) NPDES permits did not always require

the monitoring of industrial pollutant in effluent; and (3) sludge data in PCS is

limited because EPA did not consider its entry as a high priority. (Some Regions

indicated that sludge data is entered into EPA’s biosolids database but even this

was not consistent.) 

While the pretreatment regulations do not specifically require POTWs to include

sampling data in the annual pretreatment reports, the regulations do allow the

approval authority to require other relevant data. We found that 9 of our 12

selected POTWs were including data in their annual reports. However, these data

were not gathered or analyzed nationally. In our opinion, EPA is missing an

opportunity to gather and analyze data to evaluate the environmental results of the

pretreatment program. EPA could develop a statistical sampling plan and

coordinate with State approving authorities to request the required information.

More POTWs have NPDES requirements to monitor metals now than in 1991,

when EPA issued its Report to Congress on its assessment of the National

Pretreatment Program, as shown in Figure 4(A). All nine individual metals we

reviewed demonstrated significant increases between 1991 and the present. We

found that of the 1,890 POTWs covered by an approved pretreatment program,

72.5 percent had from 1 to 12 metals included as a monitoring requirement in

their NPDES permit. The reason for this increase can be due to a variety of

factors, it does not necessarily mean that the levels of these pollutants increased at
24

Metal Limits for POTWs with Approved 

Pretreatment Programs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

CHROMIUM

COPPER

CYANIDE

LEAD

MERCURY

NICKEL

SELENIUM

SILVER

ZINC

1991 2004

Figure 4(A): Comparison of Metal Limits in NPDES permits 1991 to 2004

the POTWs. In some cases, a new pollutant limit in a permit may be due to the

development of a new Water Quality Standard. In other cases, a new limit may

be due to development of or changes to the permitting authorities’ procedures for

imposing water quality based effluent limits.

In addition to the problems we encountered with the PCS data, Regional

responses indicated that PCS is not meeting their needs. Four of the 10 Regions

said they use another data system to track their pretreatment programs, while 3

others indicated they used other systems as well as PCS. This can result in

duplication of information. EPA recently created a “modernized” version of PCS

due to fundamental changes to the NPDES program. The modernized PCS will

require the entry of more pretreatment data but it will be activity-based data. 

Additionally, full PCS modernization is in jeopardy due to funding shortages and

implementation date slippage, according to OIG Report No. 2003-M-00014,

EPA Should Take Further Steps to Address Funding Shortfalls and Time

Slippages in Permit Compliance System Modernization Effort, May 20, 2003. 

A later report from October 2003 notes that EPA has delayed modernization of

PCS to fiscal year 2006.

Performance Measures Need to Be Results-Based

Measuring the impact of a program is essential to documenting program

performance to support continued funding and identify future needs. EPA’s

pretreatment measures have been activity-based to show compliance with

program regulations or that compliance mechanisms are in place, rather than

noting the impact of the program on the environment. EPA is aware of the

limitations of its pretreatment program measures and has been evaluating other

measures since 
25

1994, but has found it difficult to develop results-based measures for the

following reasons:

• Data are often limited or inconsistently collected or maintained.

• Factors such as production, plant openings/closings, change in process or

material, etc., can affect industrial discharge.

• Pipe corrosion may be the source of copper rather than industry.

• Measures such as biosolids may not apply to all POTWs.

• Reduction of loadings may not exclusively be due to pretreatment activities.

GPRA and the President’s Management Agenda state agencies need to be

accountable and provide evidence on program results to ensure continued

existence. Developing results-based measures may be complicated, as indicated

above, but EPA needs to develop these measures to the best of its ability and

disclose any limitations. EPA cannot hope to support the funding it needs for its

pretreatment program without showing program results. Also, EPA cannot

determine program direction without adequate measures. 

EPA partly funded a workgroup of Agency, State, industry, POTW, and AMSA

representatives to identify results-oriented measures of the performance of the

national pretreatment program. AMSA issued a report on the workgroup’s

conclusions on July 11, 1994. According to AMSA, the “most important

finding” is that adequate data does not exist in many locations to measure

pretreatment program performance using indicators of the quality of the ambient

environment. AMSA further stated that environmental measures appear useful in

assessing the aggregate performance of all water quality programs, but very few

true environmental measures can be linked unambiguously to elements of the

pretreatment program alone.

EPA’s Chief Financial Officer, Office of Policy, Analysis, and Accountability

hired a contractor in 2001 to examine EPA’s proposed pretreatment performance

metrics, and evaluate how well they measured actual program performance and

met GPRA objectives. In a May 19, 2002, memorandum, the contractor

concluded that: (1) the proposed performance measurement metrics had many

limitations, were not closely enough linked to environmental improvements, and

would not facilitate accurate assessments of the value of pretreatment nor enable

improved operational decisions; and (2) modernization of PCS appeared to

address many of the weaknesses in the current PCS.

In its 2004 Congressional Justification for its budget, EPA wrote that it was

developing a model to estimate pollutant reductions from POTWs, both with and

without pretreatment programs. As of April 2004, the National Pretreatment

Coordinator stated that a model was developed in 2003, but pretreatment data was

not included. Additional funding to include pretreatment data in the model was 

not provided. The Coordinator also stated that there are so many factors to
26

consider in developing a pretreatment model that its accuracy would be uncertain. 

The Water Permits Division Director said that the pretreatment program’s impact

on the environment would be evaluated as part of EPA’s watershed program. 

However, EPA will still have a challenge in showing results on a watershed basis

because of a lack of quality and consistent data. Regardless, we believe that EPA

also needs to evaluate the pretreatment program on its own as well as part of a

watershed, since the watershed approach will not assist the Agency in identifying

specific industrial problems and trends.

Conclusion

The pretreatment program is at risk of losing the gains it has made if EPA does

not become more vigorous in setting national policy and developing program

measures that can adequately document the program’s progress. While EPA has

made attempts to update its program, much of this work has not been finalized. 

Management is planning to finalize a portion of the streamlining rule and the

local limits guide, but the development of results-based measures specifically for

the pretreatment program has been discarded in favor of overall, watershed

measures. However, this approach also will have a challenge documenting results

because of limited data, and it will not enable EPA to measure progress or

identify problems related to specific pollutants or industries. Lack of resources

was given as the reason for not accomplishing all the tasks, yet EPA did not

determine the level of resources it needed, then ask for additional funding for its

pretreatment program.

Considering the fact that the pretreatment program has not made significant

progress in the past 10 years, now is the time for EPA to take stock of its

pretreatment program. It needs to develop goals on how to further reduce toxic

transfers to POTWs and the risk associated with those pollutants so that it can

fully realize Congress’ goal - the elimination of toxic pollutants to the nation’s

waters. The appropriate level of resources needed to do this should be identified

and requested.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water direct staff to:

 4.1 Develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for developing

pretreatment results-based measurements; determine the resources

necessary to carry out the strategy; and gain the support of other Agency,

State, and POTW staff to carry out the strategy. Provide milestones for

the development of this strategy to the OIG, and if this strategy cannot be 

completed with 90 days of report issuance, provide quarterly progress

reports to the OIG until results-based measures are developed.
27

 4.2 Set milestones for finalizing the streamlining rule, local limits, and other

applicable guidance. Provide milestone dates to the OIG, and if the

products are not completed within 90 days of report issuance, provide

quarterly progress reports to the OIG until the products are finalized.

4.3 Evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to enable it to

make further reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk. The

additional funding should be requested in the next funding cycle.

Agency Comment and OIG Evaluation

Before it can develop pretreatment results-based measures, the Office of Water

plans on obtaining further information on data and data systems. Using the PER

Process, the Office of Water is compiling information regarding current data

systems at the Regional/State level so it can identify inaccurate data and target

data correction in PCS as part of the transition process to the new Integrated

Compliance Information System. Once these activities are complete, the Office

of Water will determine a long-term strategy based on data availability and

resources, which should assist in developing pretreatment results-based measures.

The Office of Water stated that it was making progress in accordance with

schedules to finalize the various, still outstanding documents reported in the

finding. It is also currently developing its Strategic Plan for the coming

triennium. The PER effort will help the office evaluate whether or not the

resources allocated to implementing the pretreatment program are sufficient. 

Based on the information, appropriate action would be taken.

The Office of Water also noted that other EPA and Regional offices that

participate in the pretreatment program and related activities plan their own

strategic resource evaluations and may recognize their own priorities.

We commend the Office of Water for issuing the Local Limits Development

Guidance, one of the documents which had been outstanding during our review. 

We revised our recommendations to request the milestones for completion of

other actions and for quarterly progress reports to keep us apprised of actions not

completed within 90 days of report issuance.

While Headquarters may not directly determine Regional resource levels, it does

have powerful, indirect influence. Regional staff told us that their offices usually

take the lead from Headquarters when determining the resources to allocate to a

program. If Headquarters places less emphasis on a program, the Regions will

follow. 
28
29

Appendix A

Details on Scope and Methodology

National Results Based on TRI Data

The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (i.e., TRI) is a database that contains

information on releases of toxic substances submitted by certain industry groups under

Section 313 of the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. 

Facilities that report to TRI must: (1) fit a specific standard industrial classification

category; (2) have 10 or more full-time employee equivalents; and (3) manufacture or

process designated pounds of listed chemicals during the calendar year except for certain

persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals. The TRI list for 2001 included more than

600 chemicals and 30 chemical categories. We did not conduct an overall test of

reliability of the TRI data system. Therefore, we do not express, an opinion on TRI data

reliability in general.

In order to develop the national trends reported in Chapter 2, we obtained data from the

Computer Specialist/Database Administrator of the TRI Division who provided us with

two files based on TRI data contained within Envirofacts from industries identified by

their 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification codes associated with the original

industries reporting to TRI. The two sets of data included POTW transfer information

from these industries, one for the reporting years of 1991 through 2001 and the other

from 1987 to 2001. This information was initially used to identify general trends in

industrial transfers of pollutants to POTWs. Using EPA’s Risk Screening Environmental

Indicators Model, we developed trends in the risk associated with the pollutants

transferred to POTWs since 1987 and for pollutants added since 1995. Pollutants that

had been delisted were not included in our calculations. Removal coefficients for POTW

removal rates were identified and applied to each of the listed TRI chemicals. The oral

ingestion toxicity weight was obtained and the related risk was calculated.

Case Study Review

To assess the impact of industrial user discharges to POTWs and the difference in how

POTWs oversee their industrial users, we prepared case studies of 10 POTWs. Before

selecting individual POTWs, we selected States and Regions with the highest transfers of

pollutants to POTWs. Using TRI, we identified the top 10 industries in the nation

transferring pollutants to POTWs. We identified the top five States in the nation in

pounds of pollutants transferred to POTWs and number of industrial users. 

Our 10 case study POTWs included 6 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and
30

4 without. We selected POTWs with approved programs by size as we defined based on

plant flow in millions of gallons per day. 

Large: Over 10 millions of gallons

Medium: 5 - 10 millions of gallons

Small: Less than 5 millions of gallons

POTWs without approved programs would be small because regulations require those

with a design flow of greater than 5 millions of gallons and that receive industrial waste

to have an approved pretreatment program. We also selected some POTWs based on

Regional recommendations. The following table identifies our selected POTWs. 

Selected POTWs with

Approved Pretreatment Programs

POTWs POTW Size

State

Authorization? Region

Brenham, Texas Small Yes 6

San Marcos, Texas Medium Yes 6

Passaic Valley Sewerage

Commission - New Jersey

Large Yes 2

Greensburg, Indiana Small No 5

Orangetown, New York Medium No 2

Indianapolis, Indiana Large No 5

Selected POTWs without

Approved Pretreatment Programs 

POTW POTW Size

State

Authorization? Region

Hutchinson Minnesota Small Yes 5

Northfield, Minnesota Small Yes 5

Delphi, Indiana Small No 5

Hobart, New York Small No 2

Differences in POTW Pretreatment Programs

To determine the differences in how POTWs with and without approved pretreatment

programs oversee their industrial users, we used a combination of questionnaires and site

visits. We mailed questionnaires to nine POTWs with and nine without approved

pretreatment programs. Three POTWs from both categories were selected from Regions

2, 5, and 6. POTWs with approved programs were selected from EPA’s PCS, which

designates a POTW’s pretreatment program status. POTWs without approved programs 

were randomly selected from various documents prepared by State agencies that had
31

Categorical Industrial Users discharging into their systems.

We developed our questionnaire using EPA’s 1999 Introduction to the National

Pretreatment Program, Chapter 4, as a model for how an approved pretreatment program

should be administered. Our model included the following elements of a pretreatment

program:

• Industrial user identification,

• Local limits,

• Control mechanism used (permits, etc.),

• Inspection & sampling,

• Enforcement, and

• Reporting.

Six of the nine POTWs (66 percent) from both the approved programs as well as nonapproved program categories responded to our questionnaire. We obtained information

during our site-visits from interviews with plant officials. We reviewed NPDES permits

of the 10 POTWs visited to determine pretreatment program requirements.

The following table identifies the POTWs (listed by size) that completed our

questionnaire:

POTWs with

Approved Pretreatment Programs

POTW Size

State

Authorization? Region

Chemung County, New York Large No 2

Racine, Wisconsin Large Yes 5

Jamestown, New York Medium No 2

Wooster, Ohio Medium Yes 5

Sulphur Springs, Texas Medium Yes 6

Sapulpa, Oklahoma Small Yes 6

POTWs without 

Approved Pretreatment Programs

POTW Size

State

Authorization? Region

Rouses Point, New York Small No 2

Herkimer, New York Small No 2

Maple Shade, New Jersey Small Yes 2

Shelby, Ohio Small Yes 5

Shiner, Texas Small Yes 6

Taylor, Texas Small Yes 6

To assess Regional/State oversight of pretreatment programs, we sent two-part
32

questionnaires to all 10 EPA Regions and 6 selected States: Indiana, Minnesota, New

Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Texas. Part A of the questionnaire requested information

on resources, priorities, data systems, training, and suggestions for program

improvement, while Part B requested information on Regional/State oversight of towns

that do not have approved pretreatment programs. We used Chapter 4 of EPA’s 1999

Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program as a model of how a Control

Authority should administer an approved pretreatment program. All 10 Regions and 6

States responded to Part A. For Part B, all the eight Regions that act as a Control

Authorities responded. Regions 4 stated they do not have this responsibility. Region 7

stated that even though they are technically the Control Authority of Kansas, the State

performs all the functions under a memorandum of understanding; therefore, a response

from the Region to Part B was not provided. All the five States that act as Control

Authorities responded; New York stated they do not do so.

Program Measures

To assess the Office of Water’s efforts to develop program measures, we interviewed

EPA Headquarters and Regional staff, reviewed current and past GPRA measures, and

reviewed contractor reports evaluating established and proposed measures.

Program Maintenance and Future Needs

In evaluating how well EPA is maintaining pretreatment program gains and addressing

future needs, we used criteria from GPRA, the 2002 President’s Management Agenda,

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program, and EPA. 

EPA’s 1999 Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, Chapter 2, provided a

description of the roles and responsibilities of EPA, States, POTWs, and industrial users

in implementing the pretreatment program.

To assess program maintenance, we sent questionnaires regarding resources, priorities,

and program needs to all the Regions and six States, all of which responded. We also

interviewed pretreatment staff at Regions 1, 2, 5, and 6, and selected State agencies and

POTWs.
33

Appendix B

Basic Pretreatment Program Elements

Identifying Industrial Users

As part of program development and maintenance, POTWs are required to identify and

locate all industrial users that might be subject to the pretreatment program. POTWs

must know who is discharging and what is being discharged into the sewer systems so

that adequate control procedures can be implemented. POTWs must classify their

industrial users (e.g., significant or categorical industrial user) so that appropriate

regulations are applied. TRI now reports specifically on transfers of metals to POTWs,

which makes it useful to Agency, State, and POTW staff, and it is available on-line. 

Details on issues related to identify industrial users are in Chapter 3.

Local Limits

To protect its operations and ensure that its discharges comply with State and Federal

requirements, a POTW will develop specific discharge limits for its local industrial or

commercial facilities. Eighty-three percent of the POTWs with an approved program had

developed approved local limits compared to 60 percent of the POTWs without approved

programs. The 60 percent represents all the POTWs that had pretreatment program

requirements included in their NPDES permits by State agencies.

Permits

Pretreatment regulations require that significant industrial users be controlled by an

individual permit or other equivalent individual control mechanism, which will include

specific discharge limits, and should be enforceable when not followed. Permits are

transferable with restrictions. All our sampled 12 POTWs with approved programs

issued individual permits to significant industrial users, while only 50 percent of the

POTWs without approved programs issued permits. State Agencies issued individual

permits or Section 308 enforcement letters for POTWs without approved programs. In

some instances, such as in Minnesota, the State agency issued permits to categorical

industrial users while the POTW issued permits to other significant industrial users. 

None of the POTWs without pretreatment programs that issued permits stated their

permits were transferable, while 6 of the 12 POTWs with approved programs stated their

permits were. 

Inspection and Sampling

Inspections and sampling provide a means of verifying that the industrial user is

following its permit conditions. Documentation to support enforcement actions can be

obtained during inspections. Pretreatment regulations require POTWs with approved
34

pretreatment programs to inspect and sample significant industrial users annually at a

minimum. There are no inspection and sampling requirements for POTWs without

approved pretreatment programs. However, we asked the POTWs without approved

programs how often they inspect and sample for comparison purposes. All the POTWs

with approved programs said they sampled and inspected at least annually. All the

POTWs without approved programs said they inspected their industrial users but only 70

percent described formal, annual inspection programs. Only 50 percent said they

sampled on an annual schedule. Regional offices and State agencies will act as control

authorities for POTWs without approved pretreatment programs, but not all the Regions

and States were able to carry out inspection and sampling responsibilities due to the large

universe of significant industrial users spread out over a State and limited staffing. 

Enforcement

Enforcement Response Plans establish a framework for POTWs to investigate and

respond to instances of industrial user noncompliance in a timely, fair, and consistent

manner, and are required for POTWs with approved programs. Eleven of the 12 POTWs

with approved pretreatment programs stated that they had approved Enforcement

Response Plans, while the remaining one said its plan was under modification. We

reviewed annual pretreatment reports to determine whether POTWs were escalating

enforcement actions (e.g., administrative orders, fines, etc.). We found that the two

large-sized POTWs (with approved programs) showed evidence of escalating

enforcement but our medium to small-sized POTWs varied in their efforts. POTWs

without approved programs are not required to develop Enforcement Response Plans and

may not have authority to take formal enforcement actions. This issue is discussed in

Chapter 3. Examples are in Appendix D.

Reporting

Annual pretreatment reports should include at a minimum: (1) a list of all the POTW’s

industrial users; (2) a summary status of industrial user compliance; (3) a summary of

compliance and enforcement activities; (4) a summary of program changes; and (5) any

other relevant information requested by the approval authority. All the POTWs with

approved programs stated that they submit annual pretreatment reports. We were able to

obtain most of the reports over a 10-year period for the six POTWs with approved

programs visited and found the reports contained the minimum required information. 

Seven of the POTWs without approved programs stated they also submit annual

pretreatment reports. We do not know what information was contained in all these

reports. However, we did review annual pretreatment reports from two Minnesota

POTWs without approved programs and found these reports as complete as those for

POTWs with approved programs.
35

Appendix C

Oversight of Industrial Users by POTWs

Without Approved EPA Pretreatment Programs

(With State Pretreatment Programs)

POTWs

with State

Programs

Identify

Industrial

Users

Approved

Local

Limits

Control

Mechanism

Inspect

SIUs

Sample

SIUs

PT

 Report

Receiving

Water on

303(d) List

Herkimer,

New York *

Y Y Permit Annual Weekly Y Y

Rouses Point,

New York

Y Y Permit SemiannualNot at all Y Y

Hutchinson,

Minnesota

Y Y Permit Qtrly Annual Y N

Northfield,

Minnesota

Y Y Permit Varies,

more than

annual

Varies,

more than

annual

Y N

Shiner,

Texas

Y Y Sewer Use

Ordinance

SemiannualSemiannualY N

Taylor,

Texas

Y Y Sewer Use

Ordinance

Annual Only if

User fails

self-sample

N N

(No Alternative State Programs)

POTWs

Without State

Program

Identify

Industrial

Users

Approved

Local

Limits

Control

Mechanism

Inspect

SIUs

Sample

SIUs

PT

Report

Receiving

Water on

303(d) List

Maple Shade,

New Jersey *

Y N Permit SemiannualAnnual Y Y

Hobart,

New York *

N N Developing

Sewer Use

Ordinance

No formal

process

No sample Y Y

Delphi,

Indiana *

N N Sewer Use

Ordinance

“Not often

enough”

“Not often

enough”

N Y

Shelby,

Ohio

Y N Sewer Use

Ordinance

No formal

process -

developing

in 2004

No formal

process -

developing

in 2004

N Y

 * Experienced pass through/interference within past 2 years of responding to questionnaire.

PT: Pretreatment

SIU: Significant Industrial User
36
37

Appendix D

Examples of Enforcement Efforts

Our review of enforcement efforts by our six selected POTWs with approved programs follows:

• Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, New Jersey, and Indianapolis, Indiana, the

two large-sized POTWs, issued a variety of enforcement actions from Notices of

Violation to formal orders and fined violators.

• Orangetown, New York, a medium-sized POTW, issued at least one consent order

and a penalty from 1996 to 2002.

• From 1994 to 2002, San Marcos, Texas, our other selected medium-sized POTW,

issued only Notices of Violation, a first level response to violations of exceeding

limits and reporting. No notices were issued during 1995, 1997, or 2000. The 2002

State audit cited deficiencies that prevented the POTW from identifying violations.

• From 1993 to 2002, Greensburg, Indiana, a small-sized POTW, issued only one

Administrative Order but numerous Notices of Violation. Starting in 1996, the

POTW imposed fines on violators. The Greensburg pretreatment coordinator said

that fines made a difference in getting companies to comply.

• From 1993 to 2002, the only enforcement actions issued by Brenham, Texas, a smallsized POTW, were Notices of Violation during 1993, 1994, and 1998. The 2002

State audit cited deficiencies in the POTW’s program, which prevented it from

identifying and taking more formal enforcement actions.

Two Minnesota POTWs without approved programs submitted annual pretreatment reports that

we reviewed to determine whether violations were identified and enforcement action taken. 

• Northfield reported violations from 1994 to 2001 but never reported taking any

enforcement action. 

• Hutchinson did not identify any violations from 1993 to 2001. In 1998, Hutchinson

did report that its biosolids had a “nickel problem,” but the POTW did not identify

the problem as a violation. The POTW did indicate that a letter was written to the

industrial user responsible for the problem and the industrial user addressed the

problem.

The EPA Region 5 pretreatment coordinator stated that Northfield should be addressing

violations with enforcement actions. However, the POTW’s role in taking enforcement actions

is not clearly stated in its NPDES permit. Even though Minnesota has been delegated for
38

administering the pretreatment program since 1979, it lacks state pretreatment regulations that

could require a non-approved POTW to take enforcement. Minnesota was working on these

regulations during our visit in 2003. 
39

Appendix E

Gaps in Industrial User Oversight

Pretreatment Program Activity

State/

Region

Identify

Industrial User

Permit or Enforceable

Document

Issued to SIUs

Annual

Inspection

of SIUs

Annual

Sample

Region 2 When information comes

to their attention

Section 308

enforcement letter

Inspect CIUs once

every 5 years. SIUs

suspected of pass

through/interference

as resources allow

Sample 7-10

CIUs annually

(includes

approved)

 New Jersey Ongoing process Individual industrial

user permit

Annual inspections of

SIUs

Annual samples

of SIUs

 New York Not a control authority. Requires POTWs to develop “mini-pretreatment” program through

NPDES permit. Gap: Those POTWs not under mini-pretreatment program. About 45-50 of

universe of 70 have mini-pretreatment program.

Region 5 Defer to States Rely on States Rely on States No sampling

 Minnesota Rarely – only if

information given to

State

Individual permit, CIUs CIUs once every

5 years; SIUs “rarely”

“Rarely”

 Ohio Last update early 1990s;

every year, permit 10-15

new industrial users

Individual permit, all

SIUs

Inspect SIUs every

2 years, some

annually

Semiannually

 Indiana Last conducted in 1997 Individual permit Inspections -

not routinely

“0”

Region 6 “No current updates” Section 308

enforcement letter and

Administrative Order

“Rarely” – when pass

through/interference

suspected

 Texas Updated as information

becomes available

Section 308

enforcement letter

Inspect CIUs on

criteria and

compliance – inspect

other industrial users

as necessary

“As necessary”

CIU: Categorical Industrial User

SIU: Significant Industrial User
40
41

Appendix F

POTW Industrial Pollutant Trends 

POTWs With Approved Pretreatment Programs

 POTW Influent Effluent Sludge

Passaic Valley Sewerage

Commission, New Jersey

Of 10 pollutants:

7 showed decreases

2 remained stable

1 showed no trend

 Source: POTW records

Of 13 pollutants:

7 showed decreases

2 remained stable

4 showed no trend

 Source: POTW records

Of 7 pollutants:

1 showed an increase

2 showed a decrease

1 remained stable

3 showed no trend

 Source: POTW records

Orangetown, New York 1 pollutant remained

 stable

 Source: Annual

 Pretreatment Reports

Of 14 pollutants:

5 remained stable

9 showed no trend

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Reports

Of 10 pollutants:

1 showed an increase

1 showed a decrease

8 showed no trend

 Source: Annual Sludge 

 Report

Greensburg, Indiana State does not require

POTW to submit data.

Of 9 pollutants:

5 remained stable

4 showed no trend

 Source: PCS

PCS had insufficient data.

Indianapolis, Indiana Belmont Plant - 

Of 6 pollutants:

1 remained stable

5 showed no trend 

Southport Plant - 

Of 6 pollutants:

2 remained stable

4 showed no trend

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

Belmont Plant - 

No data

Southport Plant - 

Of 6 pollutants:

4 remained stable

2 showed no trend

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

Belmont Plant - 

Of 3 pollutants:

2 showed decrease

1 showed no trend

Southport Plant - 

No data

(POTW does not

land apply sludge)

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

Brenham, Texas Of 19 pollutants:

1 remained stable

5 remained stable, 

 below detection levels

8 showed no trend

5 showed no trend, 

 below detection levels

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

No PCS data for industrial

pollutants

PCS had insufficient data

San Marcos, Texas Of 19 pollutants:

12 remained stable

6 showed no trend

1 showed no tend, 

 below detection levels

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

No PCS data for industrial

pollutants

19 pollutants remained

 stable below detection 

 levels

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

PCS had insufficient data
42

POTWs Without Approved Pretreatment Programs

POTW Influent Effluent Sludge

Hobart, New York Not required to submit

data.

No PCS data for industrial

pollutants.

Does not land apply

sludge.

Delphi, Indiana Not required to submit

data.

No PCS data for industrial

pollutants.

Does not land apply

sludge.

Hutchinson, Minnesota Not enough samples to

determine a trend.

 Source: Annual

 Pretreatment Report

No trend for 3 industrial

pollutants.

 Source: PCS

No trend for 4 industrial

pollutants.

 Source: PCS

Northfield, Minnesota Not enough samples to

determine a trend.

 Source: Annual 

 Pretreatment Report

No trend for 5 industrial

pollutants.

 Source: PCS

No trend for 4 industrial

pollutants.

 Source: PCS

Industrial pollutants include metals and other pollutants discharged from a POTW’s industrial users.
43

 Appendix G

Agency Response

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report:

“EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program”

FROM: Benjamin H. Grumbles

Acting Assistant Administrator

TO: Dan Engelberg

Water Issues Product Line Director

Office of Program Evaluation

Office of Inspector General

Thank you for your memorandum dated July 19, 2004, transmitting the draft report on

the subject evaluation, No. 2002-0933. We appreciate your careful and thoughtful study of the

National Pretreatment Program, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with the

following comments. Your findings highlight that Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

which administer Pretreatment Programs enjoy increased National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit compliance as well as environmental quality performance,

as opposed to POTWs without approved Pretreatment Programs. For example, 17 percent of the

surveyed POTWs with approved pretreatment programs experienced a pass through or

interference event, while in contrast 40 percent of the surveyed POTWs without a pretreatment

program experienced such an event. This could certainly serve as an indicator of the

environmental benefits derived from the pretreatment program.

The Office of Water is in the process of conducting the most comprehensive assessment

of the NPDES Program in its 30 year history, as part of the Permitting for Environmental Results

(PER) Strategy. The Program Integrity component of the PER Strategy, led by the Water

Permits Division, is designed to help address several of the recommendations in this draft report. 

The PER Strategy focuses on the development and implementation of tools to continually assess

NPDES program performance, to obtain the necessary information for making adjustments to

program activities, to correct weaknesses, and to ensure continued success. As part of this effort,

EPA is compiling this information into EPA Regional and State Profiles which tell the NPDES

story.

I am pleased to respond to the draft report’s specific recommendations. In addition, an

attachment to this memorandum provides some clarifications.

Recommendation 1 (Report Recommendation 3.1):
44

Finalize [its] guidance on regulating industrial users discharging to a POTW without an

approved program.

We agree that guidance on tracking, overseeing, and controlling Significant industrial

users (SIUs) is important to ensure achievement of the Pretreatment Program’s goals. From the

EPA Regional and State Profiles, we are gathering information on the diverse tools that States

and EPA Regional offices currently use to oversee and control these SIUs, including reporting

and tracking methods. We believe that the resulting toolbox, together with the development of

standardized accounting (e.g., number, location, and industrial sectors) of these SIUs will assist

future oversight in this area.

Recommendation 2 (Report Recommendation 3.2):

Identify Regions and States designated as control authorities that are not meeting minimum

pretreatment requirements to identify, inspect, sample, and enforce against (when appropriate)

all significant industrial users. If control authorities cannot meet the minimum standards,

delegate the responsibilities to POTWs in the NPDES permit if the POTW can carry out these

duties.

Via the PER Profiles, we are documenting information on the EPA Regions and States

Pretreatment Program oversight capabilities, as well as information regarding efficiencies and

innovations used to achieve workload efficiency and maintain a high level of productivity. EPA

does not delegate its own responsibilities with respect to pretreatment to POTWs. Rather, EPA

Regions (and, in some cases, States with authorized pretreatment programs) require POTWs to

undertake certain activities as a specific condition of the POTW’s NPDES permit. These

requirements may include development of programs to control the contribution of industrial

users to the POTW by requiring compliance with EPA-promulgated pretreatment standards. 

Such programs must include certain inspection and sampling requirements. In accordance with

the NPDES and Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 122 and 123, and 403, respectively), decisions

on individual POTW NPDES permitting requirements are the responsibility of the permitting

authority, determined on a case-by-case basis. The pretreatment regulations do not require EPA

to inspect or sample SIUs.

Recommendation 3 (Report Recommendation 3.3):

Require POTWs without approved programs that are conducting oversight responsibilities to

report violations and enforcement action taken to its control/approval authority.

NPDES regulations already address reporting of violations. 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii)

currently requires all POTWs, in their NPDES Permit Application, to provide to the permitting

authority a list of the SIUs and whether problems at the POTW have been attributed to an SIU in

the past four and one-half years. Where the EPA Region or State is the Control Authority, 40

CFR 403.12(g) requires industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards to provide

periodic reports on their compliance to the Control Authority and that the industrial user must

notify the Control Authority within 24 hours when sampling indicates a violation of the

applicable standards. In accordance with the NPDES and Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 122

and 123, and 403, respectively), decisions on individual POTW NPDES permitting requirements,
45

particularly any increase in reporting beyond what is already imposed by the regulations, are the

responsibility of the permitting authority, determined on a case-by-case basis. Finally, POTWs

without approved programs would have regulatory authority to take enforcement action only if

authorization is provided by the State Codes.

Recommendation 4 (Report Recommendation 3.4):

Promote training opportunities to all POTWs with industrial users discharging to their systems

and offer on-line as well as classroom training.

We agree that training is key to maintaining Pretreatment Program knowledge. At our

July 2004 EPA-States Pretreatment Coordinators meeting, we discussed the need for improved

publicity of available training and venues, including improving our Water Permits Division

website. We have historically partnered with the Water Environment Federation for training

workshops, offered additional workshops through States offices, and also awarded a grant to the

California State University at Sacramento to develop a wastewater training series

(http://www.owp.csus.edu/wastewater.htm). Working with the Office of Compliance and the

National Enforcement Training Institute, we launched an online (and CD-ROM) training course

in July 2003 directed to inspectors, titled “CWA904: Clean Water Act/NPDES Computer-Based

Inspector Training,” which contains units specific to the Pretreatment program

(http://www.netionline.com/).

Recommendation 5 (Report Recommendation 4.1):

Develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for pretreatment result-based

measurements; determine the resources necessary to carry out the strategy; and gain the support

of other Agency, State, and POTW staff to carry out the strategy.

As your report notes, the Pretreatment Program has conducted several studies and

sponsored workgroups over the past decade for identifying performance-based measures for the

Pretreatment Program. Through the PER Process, we are compiling information regarding

current data systems used to store pretreatment data at the EPA Regional and State level. We

intend to use this information to identify inaccurate data and target data correction in PCS. Both

of these activities are crucial to facilitate migration and retention of data as we transition to the

Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Once these efforts are complete, we believe

that we will be able to determine a long-term strategy based on data availability and resources,

which should ultimately assist us in developing pretreatment result-based measurements.

Recommendation 6 (Report Recommendation 4.2):

Develop measures on how industrial user operations have changed over the years.

As required by the Clean Water Act, the Office of Water annually reviews existing

effluent guidelines and pollutant discharges from industrial facilities and investigates a variety of

technological, economic, and environmental issues that ultimately will help determine the need

for, or scope of, a revision for or development of an effluent guideline or a categorical

pretreatment standard for a particular industrial category. To the extent that changes in industrial

user operations drive our findings from these reviews, those changes would inform our planning
46

for the pretreatment program and the long-term strategy discussed in our response to

Recommendation 5.

Recommendation 7 (Report Recommendation 4.3):

Set milestones for finalizing the streamlining rule, local limits, and other applicable guidance.

The Local Limits Development Guidance was finalized and made available on the EPA

website in July 2004. As for the other efforts, we continue to make progress in accordance with

schedules established by the Office of Water.

Recommendation 8 (Report Recommendation 4.4):

Evaluate the resource needs of the pretreatment program to enable it to make further reductions

in industrial waste transfers and risk. The additional funding should be requested in the next

funding cycle.

The Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, is currently developing its

Strategic Plan for the coming triennium. As Strategic Goals and associated tasks are determined,

some of which are identified in the discussion above, we will evaluate the resources necessary to

complete those actions. In addition, the PER effort will help us evaluate whether or not the

resources allocated to implementing the pretreatment program are sufficient. Based on the

information, we would take appropriate action.

cc: Nikki Tinsley
47

 Appendix H

Distribution

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (4101M)

Director, Office of Wastewater Management (4201M)

Director, Water Permits Division (4203M)

Associate Director, Water Permits Division (4203M)

Chief, Industrial Branch (4203M)

National Pretreatment Coordinator, Industrial Branch (4203M)

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) (2710A)

Agency Audit Followup Coordinator (2724A)

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301A)

Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs (1101A)

Audit Liaison, Office of Water (4101M)

Regional Administrators, Regions 2, 5, and 6

Inspector General (2410)