We Are In This Together

Regulatory Agencies And Engineers

Team work, team work, team work.

In a perfect world, my job wouldn’t exist. We’d have some sort of wonderful technology the completely eliminates human waste and all other containments, and the natural world would be left in pristine condition without human interaction. But we don’t live in that world, and therefore things like lift stations, wastewater treatment plants exist, and are subsequently regulated by an imperfect self-reporting system. I could go on and on about that system itself but that’s not what this post is about. This post is about regulatory agencies that regulate these systems. This post is also about the engineers who help design and sometimes even run these systems. They tend to be the most opinionated on how things should be, and in a lot of cases offer really great solutions to problems. And sometimes they don’t, but the fact remains the same: we are in this together on solving a very real and human problem.

Engineers are incredibly smart people with a lot vision. But sometimes they lack hands on experience on the concepts they are designing or selling. And honestly, that’s okay in a lot of cases. What’s not okay is how some engineers act when dealing with operational staff. I’ve dealt with more than a few engineers who think because they have two letters behind their name, they can’t be bothered with the most basic questions or concerns from the client they are supposed to be helping. Most of the comments and concerns from operators comes from years of hands on experience operating plants and lift stations. We aren’t trying to diminish the education or experience of engineers, and I’d hope they wouldn’t dismiss years and years of hands on experience in multiple types of facilities. I’ve had more than one engineer tell me how certain processes are supposed to work as if I didn’t know that. This can create a volatile situation and shut down meaningful dialogue. On the flip side of this, I’ve seen some very stubborn operators argue over very practical and well designed plans just because they felt the need to offer their opinion that is contrary to the engineer. I’m all for practical solutions and I think we can come to a consensus rather quickly as opposed to arguing over a valve’s placement.

Regulatory agencies both federal and state exist for a reason, and that reason isn’t lost on me. If you don’t think regulation is needed I suggest you look up Love Canal, Bhopal, and the 1,4-Dioxane Plume in Ann Arbor, just to name a few examples of what happens when there is very little regulation and enforcement. It creates problems for us all and future generations. My job exists solely because of pollution, and collectively we are trying to solve it. Sometimes I feel as if the regulatory agencies don’t see it that way and can be very standoffish when dealing with wastewater treatment plants. I’ve had more than one accusatory conversation with agency staff that felt like we were completely on the opposite side of the environmental sector. In most cases, permit violations or exceedances are caused by equipment failure, rain events, or some other extenuating circumstance. I don’t think there are very many operators out there intentionally causing exceedances, especially if they are the operator in charge with all the legal ramifications that come with that. We all want to do one thing and that is treat wastewater to the highest standard possible so we can have the best effluent possible. But often times instead of a collaborative approach, the correspondence turns into an us versus them battle that benefits no one. I’ve had several requests over the years from EGLE (I’m being intentionally vague here) that just wasn’t possible due the design of the plant or some other legitimate factor. It then required a lot of work on my end to prove that, which usually required a lot of back and forth and supplemental documentation. That’s part of the job and I’m not complaining about it, but sometimes I just wish it was less standoffish and more collaborative on how to accomplish the goal versus just unloading it on the local municipality and expecting immediate solutions. I’d also like the person who is enforcing the regulation to show up more than once every few years and truly get a better understanding over the whole operation as opposed to the occasional audit. That probably isn’t the most practical as I know they over see a lot of facilities but I think it would help the overall discussion on the permit, etc. I strongly believe it would help them understand the plants operation in reality as opposed to solely relying on blueprints and correspondence.

I’ve noticed recently that this is starting to change and I am happy for that. I’ve noticed a lot more conferences and seminars where the state and operators are presenting together. I’ve noticed the same thing with engineers and operators. There seems to be a more collaborative approach to solving the problems in the industry. It’s always easy to point the finger at the other party and claim they just don’t understand your job, but the same can be said of you. I don’t know what it is like to be an engineer, and I don’t know what it’s like to work for the EPA or state agency where you’re always perceived as the bad guy for just trying to enforce the regulations. However, in my own experience things have gotten a lot better. I’ve had numerous correspondence with individuals from EGLE that have been very helpful and helped solve some issues. I’ve also seen a few engineers with a wrench in their hand and that’s when I realized we are truly making progress. I kid, I kid.

Reply

or to participate.