A Positive Approach to Industrial Waste Control**
DR. C. S. BORUFF*

EVERYTHING we eat, drink and wear, as well as our housing and all the refined products of our current civilization, spring originally from our basic natural resources—and the most essential of all of these is water.

We are all aware of the large increase in the water demands of our communities and industries during the past few decades. We are anticipating still greater demands in the decades to come.

There have been no predictions that our average rainfall is going to increase and, in many areas, ground water is already unable to meet current demands—much less those of the future.

Whether you are associated with agriculture, business, commerce, industry, a municipality, a recreation organization, or a regulatory agency, you have a vital stake in guarding the condition of surface water so we can use it and re-use it for all of our different purposes.

The Problem

With the anticipated growth in urban population and industrial activity, it is logical that the potential waste load to our surface waters will increase proportionately unless all of us are diligent in our efforts to lighten the waste load to our surface waters.

For many reasons agriculture must continue its efforts to reduce soil erosion into our surface waters and reduce run-off. Soil wash is a pollutant. Far too few in agriculture are following good soil erosion prevention practices. To keep up with the rapid increase in urban populations, more municipal wastes must be collected and stabilized. Industry must continue, yes, even improve, the practices of many companies regarding water conservation, water re-use, in-plant product and by-product recoveries, bottling-up operations, and in many instances operate treatment plants or participate in combined municipal-industry treatment plants. If these procedures are not locally and universally practiced, then our surface waters, with increased urban growth and industrialization, will become unfit for use or usable only after purification at a cost far in excess of in-plant recoveries and treatments.

Surface Water Quality Criteria

Surface water quality criteria vary depending on the intended use of the surface water. Few people expect our surface waters to be returned to the purity they enjoyed when the white man came to this country. Likewise, there are even fewer who would tolerate these surface waters becoming open sewers. In this field, as in others, both extremes are impractical. We must always use our streams as the final depository of our treated waste waters, but it is the responsibility of all to see to it that the quality of the water in these streams and lakes is preserved for agricultural, business, commerce, domestic, industrial and recreational purposes. The quality of this all-important and essential natural resource cannot be placed in jeopardy. Industry, even from a selfish point of view, cannot afford to unreasonably pollute this natural resource upon which it depends.

Waste Abatement, A Cost of Production

Conservation and waste problems in general arise from the natural conflict between the desire of the individual or company for personal gain through the exploitation of natural resources, and the adverse effect of such exploitation on pertinent public values inherent in them. Personal desires, however, must yield, and are yielding, to public sentiment, self-preservation and the greatest economic good to the greatest number of people. The profit or cost of recovering or treating industrial wastes at their source is a legitimate cost in the manufacture of a product and must be so considered by all of industry.

Allocation of Responsibilities

In my opinion, the responsibility for discovery and/or development of recovery and treatment procedures for industrial wastes is basically that of industry, with minor roles in this field being played by state, interstate and federal bodies. The role of governmental bodies should be to set the waste limits, in cooperation with others, bearing in mind the self-purification potentialities of the stream so that each reach of each stream may be used and reused to the greatest possible economic good to the greatest number of people. This means that recovery and treatment practices, or requirements, will differ with the amount and type of pollutant, the self-purification capacity of the stream and the down stream use for each reach of each stream.

So much for personal philosophy regarding this subject which, incidentally, is not original. It is also the philosophy of many others and is widely

* Technical Director, Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., Peoria, Illinois; Chairman of Water Resources Comm., Ill. State Chamber of Commerce; Industrial Member of Ill. State Sanitary Water Board.

October 1958 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 225

practiced. Unfortunately, there are some in industry, as there are those in agriculture, those in responsible positions in municipalities, as well as much of our public, who show apathy or take a "vote no" approach to worthy pollution control and treatment propositions. We must also be critical of those who vote yes to a "treatment for treatment's sake" proposition regardless of the true need and capacity of the stream to absorb the waste.

Some Suggestions

I would like to offer, for consideration, a few suggestions to fellow industrialists:

1. Recognize pollution. It is necessary that industry recognize pollution (as defined by law and good practices) when and where it exists and act in a positive manner toward abatement. With more people and plants depending on surface waters, the day is past when excessive pollution can be ignored until someone complains about it, or it becomes a court case, or the industry is cited by some governmental agency.

2. Control potential pollution before it happens. Stress the fact to operators of plant equipment that through process controls it is possible to prevent much industrial pollution before it occurs. Company-wide interest in pollution prevention is primarily a matter of the communication of facts, discussions and explanations at all levels—call it education if you wish.

3. Planning. Each plant should know the waste load of each of its unit processes and its plant as a whole. Old processes in existing plants should be studied and remedial changes made if waste losses are excessive. Case histories show that in many cases a carefully planned and executed waste abatement program produces added profits. Waste bottling-up, recycling, recovery and, if necessary, treatment should be included in the designing and constructing of new plant facilities. Such are a legitimate and self-preservation part of production costs. If a problem exists, recognize and study it, for pollution cannot easily be concealed. Apply the results of research to engineering development and control facilities.

4. Let others know of your progress. Advise the community of waste abatement progress and accomplishments.

5. Cooperation within the industry. Assay and solve pollution problems in cooperation with those industries which have similar wastes.

6. Community interest. Be active in your community in assaying and solving municipal waste problems, especially if the municipal treatment plant handles both domestic and industrial wastes.

7. Public awareness. Be active in current programs which aware the general public of water resource and water pollution problems.

Accomplishments by Industry

The technical and trade literature is filled with authentic papers on the problems, solutions and accomplishments of industry in the fields of water reuse, bottling-up of wastes, decreasing in-plant wastes, waste recovery to products and by-products, and waste abatement and treatment methods. A few statements as to the accomplishments of industry in reducing wastes will suffice as examples for this discussion.

Not too many years ago the grain distilling industry, with which I am associated, discharged its stillage to streams or fed part of it to steers. Either method produced heavy pollution loads. Today, with complete stillage recovery for production of distillers feeds, a distillery's total waste load from all sources has been reduced about 95%. When residual pollution is excessive for small receiving streams, waste treatment facilities are provided.

The brewing industry now recovers and dries its residual grains and yeast and treats or disposes of final waste in accordance with local conditions.

Plants processing grain to starch and allied products have presented difficult problems, but engineering planning and bold expenditures have resulted in process improvements which have greatly reduced wastes and increased profits. For example, a plant in Indiana 30 years ago reported a waste rate of 5.65 population equivalents per bushel of grind. Over the years, process changes and improvements utilizing in-plant recovery methods were made. By 1951, the waste rate was reduced to 0.7 population equivalent per bushel, a reduction of about 88%. Corn processing plants in Illinois and elsewhere have likewise materially increased in-plant recoveries.

Meat processing plants, milk processing plants, sugar beet processors, the petroleum and steel industries, in fact most of our old line industries have materially reduced their wastes through in-plant recoveries followed by various types of treatment and disposal facilities. Coal mine and a few other old line wastes await final satisfactory solutions.

New types of pollutants of undesirable or dangerous type are under intensive research by industry and governmental bodies.

Conclusion

There are still some in industry who turn their backs to waste abatement or are "dragging their feet" for selfish short term interests. In general, though, industry has recognized, and is recognizing, its waste problems and its responsibilities. It has acted, and is acting, to abate excessive wastes to surface waters, for no one has a greater stake than industry in the management of water. Without it, in usable quality and in needed quantity, there can be no industry, and—indeed—civilization as we now know it cannot survive without water, our most essential raw material.

October 1958 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 226