A
W
O
R
K
B
O
O
F
K
by
Water Pollution Control VS. Effluent Standards
E
A
T
W. B. Hart,
U
R
E
Pantech, Inc.
- Stream Standards
Industry will go along much more quickly with stream standards than with effluent requirements
A
GREAT many words have been used in discussion of this controversial subject but no general policy applicable in all the country seems to have become acceptable. This situation causes a great deal of difficulty for those engaged in the abatement of lvater pollution. T h e opinion has been growing that there is use for both stream standards and efiuent standards. The stream standard should be given the greatest consideration and should take precedence over effluent standards in general practice. The effluent standards should be reserved for application where there is recalcitrance to be overcome. Also, effluent standards may be necessary where there is high density of industrial activity. Here it is desirable to be able to trace particular pollutional substances to their source and to maintain the necessary allowable discharge that will prevent the pollution these substances could create. Any opinion expressed concerning controversial matters is subject to examination to ascertain its soundness and the conditions which contribute to its development. Therefore, it is proper to examine the opinion that stream standards should be the basis by which pollution abatement properly should be measured. This examination can take any of several forms. From the legal aspect it would be supported by the fact that practically every law or regulation in this field, state or federal, has for its purpose the prevention and abatement of
pollution of its waterways. Few, if any of these laws, however, present any suggestion as to technical procedures for preventing pollution or any definite statement on the quantities of pollutional substance that may be discharged into a public body of water. There is a good reason for this situation. For one thing, assuredly successful methods for the treatment of numerous types of industrial wastes are not always known. If they were known the rapid advance in many technologies of manufacture would soon make such laws or regulations obsolete or would require continual changes in the pro-
cedures or restrictions as to quantity acceptable for discharge which they would establish. Further, in densely populated industrial areas such laws could not effectively provide for the interaction of wastes after discharge. T h e chemistry and biology of such interaction is not as yet even nearly well enough known to make such interactions predictable. A second phase of the situation is that of responsibility. Assume that a raw waste when discharged into a stream causes continuous “fish kills,” or creates a hazard in the treatment of the water for potable use. T h e establishment discharging
. 0
/,-I-
c
, ’
/’ VOL. 48, NO. 9
SEPTEMBER 1956
65 A
brd
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
the waste is advised of the condition the waste creates and also directed to a process by which, presumably, the waste can be treated to make it innocuous. T h e establishment accepts the use of the procedure and spends thousands of dollars to install the treatment. But as a result of some step in its manufacturing processes or for other reasons, there is little or no improvement in the pollutional effects although examination of the effluent shows that the limitations set forth in the law or regulation are being met. Then the authorities must go back to the organization and say that they have not gone far enough, they must investigate further, install more treatment, spend more money. T h e industrial establishment responds that they have met the law or regulation requirement both as to process and limitation of pollutional substances in their effluent. T h e authorities reply that they are charged with the responsibility of preventing the pollution regardless of the working of the law or regulation. A grand fight has begun; by doing just what was required of it the industrial establishment has put the responsibility right back in the hands of the authority and the authority does not want it. This is why such forms of law or regulation are avoided on the books. Authorities, both state and federal, have been asked many times by industrial people how their industrial wastes should be treated. “Just what do you want us to do, how much acid, alkali, phenol, or cyanide can be discharged?” they say. T h e authorities promptly answer that they cannot and will not answer such questions. They cannot accept a situation in which they are taking a scientific responsibility of that nature. Their job is only to prevent or abate pollution, not to prescribe methods for doing it. But prevent or abate pollution of what? Simply of the stream or other public water into which waste is being discharged. I t is the stream in which they are interested and for which they carry responsibility and authority for its protection. Should the industriai organization choose to treat its wastes in some manner diametrically opposed to the recommendation of a state au66 A
A
W o r k b o o k Feafure
thority, or to the requirement of a law or regulation should such law or regulation exist, and eliminated the pollution there is little chance that the courts, public opinion, or any other other medium of pressure, would condemn the method of treatment or the organization that applied it. O n e of the strongest arguments in favor of stream standards is the ease and extent with which they can be applied. Recently there has been great pressure for the enactment of federal legislation that would cover the entire United States with a uniform antipollution law. Uniform legislation of any nature is highly desirable when it can be applied to uniform conditions. But where the legislation is uniform and the conditions it is to govern are not uniform, it probably presents more difficult problems than when the reverse is true. It is highly improbable that any- other than very general uniform legislation to control water pollution over the entire country is practicable, because the conditions in various parts of the country are so different. It would be highly helpful to the manufacturing areas of the tkvo coasts if they could discharge Lvastes with dissolved solids concentrations that would well fit the highly alkaline areas of the Southwest and the great basin regions, and not have to \vorry about osmotic effects, and it should be remembered that dissolved solids often create serious problems \vhen acid neutralization and similar processing are involved in waste treatment procedures? Similarli-, why should the industrialists and farmers of the Southwest and great basin regions have to worry about phenols in wastes when the waters receiving the wastes cannot be used for potable purposes or stock lvatering because they are too alkaline for consumption? Stream standards would avoid any such complications for they would be established by local conditions, and the cleanliness of the waterways \vould be easy to check. In practical11 every section of the country there are public waters lvhich are not polluted. Such waters will establish the general characteristics of all the waters of the region. By comparison with any
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
\vatercourse that ansivers this general condition of cleanliness a stream that may be under suspicion readily can be rather definitely determined to be clean or polluted. Thus, each area of the country will establish its own standard of cleanliness and the quality of all the waters in the area can he brought to approximately the same level of cleanliness without involved discussions as to what can or cannot be discharged in a waste. The stream will soon reveal any serious breakdown in this acceptable degree of cleanliness. Use of the term, “acceptable degree of cleanliness,” calls attention to another argument in favor of stream standards. T h e construction and operation of waste treatment plants are expensive. Industrial people, unaccustomed to spending money Lvithout knowing before they do SO that the expenditure is going to bring about a profit, have been slow in pollution abatement activities because only infrequently does an expenditure for waste treatment bring about a return. Industry has now come to realize that Ice must protect what clean waters we have, and try to recover the cleanliness of polluted waters. Industry can see much more common sense in such protection than in trying to meet some specification for its wastes prior to discharge, a specification for \vhich perhaps only a few in the industrial organization can understand the need. Industry will go along much more willingly Lvith stream condition requirements than with effluent requirements. These latter are only a device that is hoped will bring about proper stream conditions, There are other reasons that could be cited for giving stream standards preference over effluent standards. Hoblever, effluent standards also should be considered, and their proper application discussed \\here there is the possibility of gain in pollution abatement or elimination to be obtained. These \\ill be the subject of the discussion for November.
Correspondence concerning this column will be forwarded if addressed to the author, uc Editor, INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY, 1155-16th St., N. W., Washington 6, D. C.
I I
FAST ANALYSES
I I
I
FOR A F A S T A G E I I I
Consolidated's 27- 703C Mass spectrometer for Jet-Fuel Research
.., Production
Here is an instrument that literally counts molecules to provide one of today's fastest methods for analyzing hydrocarbon gases and liquids. Because it can quickly, accurately determine mixture components at mass numbers as high as 700, yet be equally a t home with gases and light liquids, the 21-103Chas proved invaluable in every phase of the growing jet-fuel business. It is used in process research to perfect new refining methods. . . in process control to insure production efficiency and product quality. . , and in the jet-engine business itself f o r fuel and exhaust-gas analyses in research and development studies of combustion efficiency. The 21-103CMass Spectrometer is fast: only an hour or less to analyze even complex mixtures . . . key-component determinations in just minutes. Up to 30 or more components can be separately determined, and a permanent, easily read record is made automatically for every analysis. Where accelerated research and production programs demand fast methods. . , and t o p a c c u r a c y . . . it will pay you to investigate this thoroughly proven, thoroughly up-to-date instrument. Send for Bulletin CEC 18OOC-X21.
H E R E ' S W H A T THE 21-103C M A S S SPECTROMETER CAN DO
...
exploratory analyses. . . every volatile material in the sample registered, its presence made known, whether or not it is expected.
I
I I '
8
'
I I I
Records from the 21-103C are permanent, easy t o interpret. They are made automatically, so that the operator can prepare the next sample while one is being analyzed.
! I 1
I I I I I
Consolidated Electrodynamics COR PORATION
I
control analyses.. . feed, intermediate, or product streams quickly analyzed, for maintaining optimum process efficiency and uniformly high product quality.
. . . can detect contaminating substances present in concentrations as low as 5 parts per million.
purity determinations
research investigations . . . flexible operation is ideal for the non-standard conditions en-
countered in research work. complex-mixture analyses.. . 30 or more components in mixtures can be separately determined; even mass isomers readily separated,
I
formerly Consolidated Engineering Corporation
300 North Sierra Madre Villa, Pasadena, California
I
Albuquerque, Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, New York, Pasadena, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Washingtoti, D. C.
I I
SALES AND SERVICE OFFICES I N :
Electronic lnstrumenfs for Measurement and Control
I I
I I
For further information, circle number 61 A on Readers' Service C ard, page 139 A VOL. 48, NO. 9
SEPTEMBER 1956
67A
