REGULATORY FOCUS
Clean Water Act revisited
Richard M. Dowd
The debate on the nation's water pollution laws continues this summer with a few interesting changes since last year. There are now three major items of legislation that have been developed: One that has been reported out of committee to the floor of the Senate by the Committee on Environment and Public Works (S. 5431); a bill that has been introduced into the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation (H.R. 3282); and a Reagan administration bill that was introduced last year. New additions to this legislation are as varied as the provisions that were introduced last year. The debate over the implementation of best practicable technology/best available technology ( B P T / B A T ) and pretreatment of influents to publicly owned treatment works ( P O T W s ) continues to focus on whether a technology- or water-based approach to attaining water quality standards should govern. Congress seems to be saying that control technology standards should be advanced one more notch; that more stringent control technology is needed to clean up the nation's rivers and streams. In any event, it is doubtful that there will be a waiver from BAT requirements in the final Clean Water Act amendments. Pretreatment of influents to POTWs Local and regional water quality managers are urging Congress to give 0013-936X/83/0916-0351 A$01.50/0
them more flexibility in determining whether and when the pretreatment of influents is needed for proper operation of publicly owned treatment works. As a result, there has been serious consideration of a waiver from the categorical pretreatment requirements. Last year, the administration sponsored a provision to allow such waivers, and the Senate followed the proposal with interest. When EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus appeared before the Congress recently, he indicated that EPA was still trying to define an appropriate waiver mechanism. The viability of any pretreatment waiver hinges on EPA's ability to offer P O T W operators a removal credit provision. Such a provision would permit operators the flexibility of evaluating each treatment works' needs for a pretreatment program. So far, a pretreatment waiver provision has not been included in the Senate or House bills, although such a provision is possible. Deadlines for installing BAT The Senate bill imposes a three-year deadline for installing BAT after the source-specific BAT guidelines have been issued by EPA; but in no case later than July 1, 1987. Under the present agency schedule for development of BAT guidelines, there are three years from issuance of the final guideline in June 1984 until July 1987. Should guideline development be further delayed in any way, -this threeyear period will be shortened. In some instances, industry would prefer to extend the deadlines, maintaining that three years will be insufficient because, when the guideline is set, the permit writer has yet to determine the level and type of controls for a source. Meanwhile, the environmental community believes that the guidelines will indicate the kind of controls that are necessary, and most industrial sources should be able to begin plant design
© 1983 American Chemical Society
and construction within a reasonable time. The Senate and the House bills both focus on what will happen after the BAT guidelines have been established and controls have been installed. Both bills address the evolution from a technology-based approach to a waterquality-based approach to meeting standards. The bills require that EPA identify rivers and streams where installation of BAT was not sufficient to meet standards. Under these circumstances, EPA is given clear direction to establish new levels of control that would go beyond BAT in order to attain applicable standards. Nonpoint sources Senate committee members have expressed an interest in nonpoint sources of water pollution. As point source controls become more stringent, nonpoint sources will become more significant contributors of both conventional and toxic pollutants. While a nonpoint source provision is not presently in the Senate bill, it is likely to be reintroduced. It is important to note what the bills do not cover. Although the bills suggest areas where more water quality data are needed, they do not identify the monitoring of pollutants as a key issue nor do they provide any direction to EPA to establish a comprehensive monitoring system for the nation's waters. In the late 1980s, the availability of adequate information will be critical to making decisions about water pollution control strategies. Without a significant monitoring effort, it is very likely that future debates will include discussion of the recurring need for information on direct-source contributions and the effectiveness of controls.
Richard M. Dowd, PhD, manages the Washington, D.C.,office of Environmental Research & Technology, Inc. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 8, 1983 351A
