363 
CRHCAS Per GE mRe i 
ASSESSING ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL NEEDS 
INTRODUCTION 
Pretreatment is not new for most publicly owned treatment works 
operators, be they major metropolitan areas or small rural villages. Most 
entities have had some type of ordinance, if only general prohibitions, 
such as pH controls, for many years. Many of these regulations arose 
from obvious problems such as collapsed sewers due to damage from industrial 
discharges, treatment plant upsets, or in a few tragic cases, the actual 
death of sewer workers. i 
In most cases, the need for minimum regulations of these types was 
readily apparent to both the publicly owned treatment works policy body 
and to most responsible users of the system. The application and extent 
of the present Federally mandated pretreatment requirements, however, 
go well beyond that which is immediately obvious, and therefore may not 
be readily palatable to either the POTW policy body or the local industries. 
In this case, we are dealing with many exotic materials in barely measurable 
quantities, the effect of which on the POTW and environment is not as 
immediately apparent as a collapsed sewer or a major wastewater plant 
upset. 
Despite these problems, many agencies have already developed industrial 
source control programs, and many others are beginning to do so. Of primary 
concern to POTWs engagedin this process are the associated costs of the 
program. This chapter attempts to assist POTWs in this regard by focusing 
on anticipated program development and administration costs as well as 
on possible cost recovery methods that can be used by local agencies to 
pay for their programs on an ongoing basis. 
LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COSTS 
Local pretreatment program development costs will vary from POTW 
to POTW depending on such factors as previous,efforts, facility size, 
and the number and type of industries tied into the municipal system. 
In addition, these costs will be affected by the extent to which EPA will 
require sampling and analysis for priority pollutants. Regardless of 
these cost variables, POTWs should anticipate significant capital expendi- 
tures as they develop a local pretreatment capability in accordance with 
legislative mandates and accompanying administrative requirements. With 
some limitations, however, these costs will be offset by the availability 
of 75% Federal construction grant funding, and POTWs are advised to review 
EPA's September 23, 1980, Municipal Pretreatment Program Guidance Package 
for detailed information regarding pretreatment grant application procedures 
and eligible costs for the development of an approvable municipal pre- 
treatment program. 
-96- 
