page 911 |
Previous | 1 of 9 | Next |
|
|
Loading content ...
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT: A QUESTION OF CREDIT Robert G. O'Dette, Chief Technical Section Tennessee Division of Water Quality Control Nashville, Tennessee 37219 From Purdue to Pasadena and Duluth to Dallas, the road to government regulations is paved with good intentions, but in these times of high inflation, low productivity, and serious unemployment, how much regulation is enough and how much is too much? Last year thousands upon thousands of bills and resolutions were introduced in Congress and many of them received considerable publicity because they were in some way aimed at the regulation of business. However, what largely escaped the attention of the press and public was the cascade of federal rules, regulations and directives pouring forth daily from the offices of government agencies. Unlike much legislation which is introduced but never passed, each of these regulations carry the same weight as any bdl signed into law by the President. At last count, there were more than 61,000 pages of federal regulations! When one stops to think of the impact of the pretreatment regulations which represent a minute fraction of the total, it is difficult to understand how people can continue to do business in this country and easy to understand why we are at the threshold of a major economic recession if not depression. The goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) relative to industrial pretreatment are valid, because there are many potential problems associated with the discharge of industrial wastewaters into municipal sewerage systems. In Section 307(b) of the CWA, Congress charged EPA with the responsibdity of establishing pretreatment standards for podutants that are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by the POTW or that would interfere with the operation of, or otherwise be incompatible with, such treatment works. Industrial, as well as state and local government, response to the resultant pretreatment regulations and categorical pretreatment standards has been justly critical in regard to legal direction, standards rational and the cost versus environmental benefits. The most distasteful pill for industry to swallow is being required to provide pretreatment which is not necessary to protect the unit operations, sludge, or pass-through aspects of publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The well-publicized NRDC consent decree, essentially requires EPA to establish technology-based pretreatment for 21 industrial categories and 65 toxic substances (129 priority pollutants). These pretreatment standards wdl be based upon the capabilities and/or estimated capabilities of technologies to remove pollutants on an industry-by-industry classification rather than the need to protect the POTW or the receiving water quality. In other words, many industries, depending on location, will be required to provide wastewater treatment for the sake of meeting a nationally developed standard rather than meeting a condition necessary to protect the unit operations, sludge handling and disposal, and effluent limitation at the POTW. The inherent deficiencies associated with this concept are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the relationship between poUutional load and dry-weather, low-flow conditions experienced at the POTW. The dry-weather, low-flow rates are used because they reflect the most critical period relative to the domestic ddution factor. The diagonal line represents the influent concentration of the pollutant that must not be exceeded to protect unit operations at the POTW and prevent pass-through or any other limiting factor, such as sludge contamination. The horizontal line toward the upper third of the graph represents the actual pollutional load in the raw industrial discharge. The horizontal line toward the lower third of the graph represents the pollutional load that would be discharged by the industry in question if that industry met the appropriate EPA pretreatment limit. This graph demonstrates that there could be flow conditions in some communities whereby no pretreatment would be necessary for POTW protection, whde in other commu- 911
Object Description
Purdue Identification Number | ETRIWC198091 |
Title | Industrial pretreatment : a question of credit |
Author |
O'Dette, Robert G. |
Date of Original | 1980 |
Conference Title | Proceedings of the 35th Industrial Waste Conference |
Conference Front Matter (copy and paste) | http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/engext,31542 |
Extent of Original | p. 911-919 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital object copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Date Digitized | 2009-10-22 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Description
Title | page 911 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Transcript | INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT: A QUESTION OF CREDIT Robert G. O'Dette, Chief Technical Section Tennessee Division of Water Quality Control Nashville, Tennessee 37219 From Purdue to Pasadena and Duluth to Dallas, the road to government regulations is paved with good intentions, but in these times of high inflation, low productivity, and serious unemployment, how much regulation is enough and how much is too much? Last year thousands upon thousands of bills and resolutions were introduced in Congress and many of them received considerable publicity because they were in some way aimed at the regulation of business. However, what largely escaped the attention of the press and public was the cascade of federal rules, regulations and directives pouring forth daily from the offices of government agencies. Unlike much legislation which is introduced but never passed, each of these regulations carry the same weight as any bdl signed into law by the President. At last count, there were more than 61,000 pages of federal regulations! When one stops to think of the impact of the pretreatment regulations which represent a minute fraction of the total, it is difficult to understand how people can continue to do business in this country and easy to understand why we are at the threshold of a major economic recession if not depression. The goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) relative to industrial pretreatment are valid, because there are many potential problems associated with the discharge of industrial wastewaters into municipal sewerage systems. In Section 307(b) of the CWA, Congress charged EPA with the responsibdity of establishing pretreatment standards for podutants that are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by the POTW or that would interfere with the operation of, or otherwise be incompatible with, such treatment works. Industrial, as well as state and local government, response to the resultant pretreatment regulations and categorical pretreatment standards has been justly critical in regard to legal direction, standards rational and the cost versus environmental benefits. The most distasteful pill for industry to swallow is being required to provide pretreatment which is not necessary to protect the unit operations, sludge, or pass-through aspects of publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The well-publicized NRDC consent decree, essentially requires EPA to establish technology-based pretreatment for 21 industrial categories and 65 toxic substances (129 priority pollutants). These pretreatment standards wdl be based upon the capabilities and/or estimated capabilities of technologies to remove pollutants on an industry-by-industry classification rather than the need to protect the POTW or the receiving water quality. In other words, many industries, depending on location, will be required to provide wastewater treatment for the sake of meeting a nationally developed standard rather than meeting a condition necessary to protect the unit operations, sludge handling and disposal, and effluent limitation at the POTW. The inherent deficiencies associated with this concept are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the relationship between poUutional load and dry-weather, low-flow conditions experienced at the POTW. The dry-weather, low-flow rates are used because they reflect the most critical period relative to the domestic ddution factor. The diagonal line represents the influent concentration of the pollutant that must not be exceeded to protect unit operations at the POTW and prevent pass-through or any other limiting factor, such as sludge contamination. The horizontal line toward the upper third of the graph represents the actual pollutional load in the raw industrial discharge. The horizontal line toward the lower third of the graph represents the pollutional load that would be discharged by the industry in question if that industry met the appropriate EPA pretreatment limit. This graph demonstrates that there could be flow conditions in some communities whereby no pretreatment would be necessary for POTW protection, whde in other commu- 911 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for page 911