At 60° C , the overall stack resistance of the inorganic membrane unit dropped 3 1 % . At the same time salt removal climbed 30% with a lower power input. The high-temperature performance of the organic unit was better. But the organic membranes were distorted so severely that the liquid flow passages were completely blocked. The inorganic membranes showed no signs of deterioration. To study the effect of detergents on the inorganic membranes, a long-term electrodialysis test was made on dodecyl benzenesulfonate-sodium chloride solution. The inorganic unit achieved a current efficiency of 80% and a salt removal of 68%. The detergent didn't adversely affect the salt exchange or current efficiency, although it did boost the overall stack resistance. In the organic unit, the detergent caused the hydraulic flow conditions to deteriorate and salt exchange and current efficiency to vary erratically. To sum it all up, the IITRI workers say, inorganic membranes do show promise for use in brackish water conversion. The membranes have electrical resistances comparable to those of commercial organic membranes, although their transference numbers are lower than those of organic ones. But "with further modifications based on exchanger-binder combinations, membrane pores, and other electrochemical considerations, it should be possible to improve the transference properties," Dr. Rajan says.
Dr. Flannery explains that the $20 billion investment figure refers to the cost of building municipal sewage plants only. It is based on an inventory of present facilities and reflects the backlog of current needs, an obsolescence factor, and future growth. Even so, it is not a firm figure. It relies heavily on past treatment and operating concepts; and there is uncertainty about the extent to which municipalities will treat industrial wastes. The federal economist says that estimates of the cost of future industrial waste treatment plants are even more vague. There are some scattered figures on investment in the past. A few industry sectors have made estimates of future costs. But there is not even an inventory of manufacturing plants' waste disposal practices and needs.
Clean water costs vague Despite the furor and concern over water pollution there is still no satisfactory estimate of what it will cost to clean up the nation's waterways and keep them clean, according to Dr. James J. Flannery, chief economist of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. He says that the most popular estimate of a $20 billion capital investment for new treatment plants through 1972 is misleading and almost certainly low. There is also no accurate fix on how water pollution control costs are to be split among industry, local governments, and the Federal Government, Dr. Flannery said at a one-day Air and Water Pollution Control Conference, held at the University of Notre Dame. And the effects that these costs will have on public borrowing, interest rates, tax levels, prices, and profits remain unknown, he adds. Economist Flannery points out that Congress recognizes this lack of knowledge. The Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 calls for a government study of pollution finances.
Dr. James J. Flannery Misleading and probably low
Industry has already invested several billion dollars in water pollution control. But, Dr. Flannery says, "whatever industry has done in the past, it has not been good enough." Dr. Flannery notes that Congress has not ignored the pleas of industry for financial help. For instance, the 7% tax credit is still available for water treatment facilities. The authorization of federal funds for municipal plants is now $3.55 billion (through fiscal 1971). The complete removal next year of the ceiling on the amount of this aid for individual plants definitely will help industry, Dr. Flannery asserts. The larger plants possible with this aid will lower the charge a municipality makes for treating industrial wastes. Also, local governments can now establish waste treatment districts for industry and get federal aid to do it.
Focus on air pollution "Just as we need a nonproliferation treaty among nations, so we need nondiffusion treaties between the states that share the same airshed." With this analogy, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey helped open last week's National Conference on Air Pollution, in Washington, D.C. Assessing the air pollution problem, Vice President Humphrey says that the U.S. is about six to 10 years behind the times in seriously getting down to work on the problem of air pollution. "Both industry and local governments should intensify their air pollution control programs," he urges. The Vice President notes one big problem for industry in complying with this goal: Standards of air pollution control vary greatly from city to city and state to state. Thus he asks whether industries in one city could be expected to zealously support the enactment of stringent regulations when their competitors elsewhere might not have to make equal expenditures. With these and other comments and frequent allusions to the East Coast's Thanksgiving Day smog scare, 3000 leaders from government, industry, science, and civic groups met to discuss "Control Now—for Clean Air" (the conference's theme). Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner followed the Vice President and bluntly stated that the U.S. is losing ground in its fight against pollution. He cites the narrow choices now open: Remain indoors, issue gas masks, or live in domed cities. Or "take action to stop fouling the air we breathe." But hindering immediate action, Dr. Gardner says, is this string of realities: • "Most state programs lack adequate authority and resources. Only a half dozen have more than a minimal abatement program. Few are able to serve communities which are too small to operate their own programs. • "State and local governments have been slow in seizing opportunities for action. In particular, they have failed to establish the regional approaches demanded by a problem that ignores traditional boundaries. • "Most industries have yet to take vigorous leadership in combating air pollution. If pollution is to be prevented at its source, then industry cannot escape its responsibilities." Among actions taken recently at the federal level, automotive exhaust control heads the list, Dr. Gardner says. Emission standards will be required on all domestic and imported cars beginning with next fall's line of 1968 models. Funding for air pollution control is still low, but currently $15 million flows to communities and $5 million to DEC. 19, 1966 C&EN
15
states. "Although these amounts are far from adequate," he says, "they compare favorably with the combined state and local spending of about $12.7 million at the end of 1963." He adds that local air pollution programs across the country increased from 85 to 130 since 1961, and state programs almost doubled in number, from 17 to 33. But regional programs are virtually nonexistent, he says. Air pollution control today is not basically a technological problem. The real difficulty, said Dr. Eric A. Walker, president of Pennsylvania State University, is that efforts to control air pollution have, up to now, been very largely piecemeal efforts. "In spite of our long-standing concern with the various aspects of the problem, we have for the most part attacked it in terms of a single industry, or a single source of pollution such as domestic incinerators, or the fumes from automobiles and trucks. And even where we have attacked the problem on a communitywide basis, we have allowed ourselves to be hampered by legal and political complications." He goes on to say that "the problem we really face is a problem of integrating our attack, of coordinating our efforts, of pulling together the knowledge we have gained, and are gaining, of the factors involved." He suggests applying a broad interdisciplinary approach. "What we need," Dr. Walker says, "is a judicious system for rewarding those who use technology to produce the best possible product or service at the least possible cost—but who do it without destroying the natural benefits which rightfully belong to all of us— the air, the water, and the open spaces that constitute our mutual environment." Dr. Walker sees three aspects of the problem that demand immediate attention. "First," he says, "we must exert every possible effort to develop better channels of communication among all those who have some part to play in a coordinated attack on the problem. Secondly, we must undertake an intensive program of public education. And finally—and most important—we must extend and develop our techniques for systems management so that they can be effectively applied to a problem of this complexity." On the health front, Dr. John S. Chapman, president of the American Thoracic Society, urged that "reasonable demands for clean air not be supported by illogic and specious argument." In his view it is not possible to say that atmospheric pollution produces chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, or cancer. There is no doubt, however, that periods of high pollution 16 C&EN DEC. 19, 1966
Penn State's Walker Not basically technological
HEW Secretary Gardner U.S. losing ground
National Conference on Air Pollution Allusions to Thanksgiving Day
and prolonged stagnation aggravate the first three and shorten the lives of people with bronchitis and emphysema. Tackling the problem of "Setting Goals for Clean Air," Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D.-Me.) stated that with the exception of moving sources of pollution such as automobiles, he does not favor setting fixed national emission standards for individual sources of pollution. What the U.S. needs, the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution says, "is national ambient air quality criteria, applied as standards on a regional basis." Sen. Muskie feels that "the Federal Government is the logical entity to develop the criteria, with the cooperation of public and private groups." These criteria, the senator notes, must take into account health, esthetics, conservation of natural resources, and protection of public and private property.
"The criteria must be modified as our knowledge expands," he states, "to provide added protection against unforeseen pollution hazards." The ultimate goal of the criteria should be to approach a level at which man will have to cope with little more than the "natural background level" of pollution. However, setting criteria will not be enough, he adds. The criteria must be applied effectively, and implemented through the enforcement of emission standards. To emphasize his belief that the national program of air pollution control must be improved and extended, Sen. Muskie announced that his subcommittee plans hearings next February. The hearings will "further explore the problems and progress in control of automobile exhaust emissions." The subcommittee intends to start hearings in Los Angeles on California^ experience with 1966 model year auto emission devices.
