Section 18. LAWS AND REGULATIONS
PRETREATMENT: THE INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE
Robert G. O'Dette, Chief
Wastewater Facilities Engineering Section
Division of Water Quality Control
Department of Public Health
State of Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Just the other day I was listening to a radio commercial for the Dale Carnegie course.
The lead in of the advertisement pointed out that when a person starts out on a road that
they can see only so far, but as they move along the road they are able to see farther and
farther. In essence, as one moves along any course, his horizons broaden and as he gains
more and more experience he does a better job and is able to advance further than he had
ever dreamed possible in the beginning.
I wish that I could stand here today and say that this scenario is truly applicable to the
EPA pretreatment program. It has been over four years since the original general pretreatment regulations were proposed and public comments solicited by EPA and I doubt seriously if very many people, knowledgeable about pretreatment, would come forward and say
we are better off today than we were four years ago. The tragedy is that we should be! Had
the regulatory bureaucracy of EPA taken notes and learned from their experiences along the
pretreatment road and made the necessary in-course changes things could have been much
better today. However, we have to face reality and the track record of EPA: the agency is
not far-sighted nor does it have any flexibility to make in-course changes nor does it really
have the will to do so. The arrogant and glib attitudes displayed by most EPA big-wigs has
done much to destroy any reasonable working relationship or lines of communication that
might have been possible between the agency and municipalities, industries and other state
and local regulatory agencies. What we have instead is primarily a number of adversary
groups cursing and pulling their hair out because of the frustrations in trying to deal with
EPA.
In originally passing the Clean Water Act, congress attempted to establish sound water
quality goals as well as principles by which to control toxic substances. When this law
was written, however, very little data existed around which programs could be structured
or implemented. As a result of this, the congress gave vast, almost unlimited power to the
Administrator of EPA to establish standards and regulations. This situation has led to the
promulgation of regulations which have seldom if ever been based upon the most efficient
and cost effective means available.
The goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) relative to industrial pretreatment are valid, because there are many potential problems associated with the discharge
of industrial wastewaters into municipal sewerage systems. In Section 307(b) of the CWA,
Congress charged EPA with the responsibility of establishing pretreatment standards for
pollutants that are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by the POTW or that
would interfere with the operation of, or otherwise be incompatible with, such treatment
works. Industrial, as well as state and local government response to the resultant pretreatment regulations and categorical pretreatment standards has been justly critical in
regard to legal direction, standards rationale and the cost versus environmental benefits.
847