A major complaint on the part of some sanitary engineers is that the toxic
substances contained in industrial wastes present a special environmental
threat and may even disrupt the municipal treatment process. For example, a
change in the composition of paper mill plant wastes resulted in the buildup
of partially unstabilized organic material in the sludge drying beds of a Kala—
mazoo, Michigan, municipal plant in 1967 [32]. This produced a putrid odor
that required costly countermeasures which reduced the effectiveness of the
plant. A serious fire broke out in one Ohio plant, presumably on ignition of
volatile industrial wastes [33]. In other plants, poisohous chemicals and me—
tallic compounds from industry have interfered with bacteria that decompose
wastes.
_
Other sanitary engineers argue that such episodes, although occaSionally
spectacular, have been limited in scope and will become increasingly rare as
stricter municipal codes are enacted to prevent or limit sewer dischage of
toxic substances, cils, and gases; the codes will force industries to pre—treat
wastes that contain such materials.
‘
Use of Public Money
Interwoven with these problems is the more subtle and still unresOlved issue
about the extent to which‘federal funds, which can be granted for 75 percent
of the total cost of treatment facilities, should «be-used for industrial waste
'
treatment capacity. Studies by the US. Department of the Interior and the
US. General Accounting Ofce (CAO), a Congressional watchdog agency,
have made it clear that a considerable amount of federal money
has been '
used in this Way [34]. In one study, 44 of 381 facilities were found to be de—
signed to treat wastes that were at least 75 percent of industrial origin”. Total
estimated cost of the 44 facilities was $46.3. million, with various federal
grants conttibuting about $17.2 million. In one case, grants totaling $806,000
were given to build a waste treatment plant for the sole use of afood—1‘irocess—
ing plant, apparently as an inducement‘for the plant to locate in one particu—
lar area. The treatment plant was built, but, ironically, had to be put out of
service in 1969 when the food—processing plant halted operations. In its own
survey, the CAO identied seven projects, out of 44 audited, which were for
the construction of municipal facilities to treat exclusively industrial wastes.
Federal construction grants for the seven projects totaled about $503,000. For
29 of the remaining 37 projects, industrial wastes comprised 50 percent br
more of either the total volume of waste or of the BOD removal capacity of
the plants—a percentage equivalent to the estimated national average of in—
dustrial waste loading in municipal waste treatment plants. Proponents admit
‘
that occasional questionable applications of funds for industrial waste treat—
ment have been made in the guise of municipal facilities, but they quickly
add that the distinction between municipal and domestic wastes is articial. ‘
_
_Ï-‘Ç
'
For example, commercial and service industries such as laundries, restaurants,
and hotels have customarily been included as legitimate sourCes
Was‘tes. The line between these commercial interests and
‘ËÎ
.
_
’
,.
_
Use ofPubthonz—æy 109
substances contained in industrial wastes present a special environmental
threat and may even disrupt the municipal treatment process. For example, a
change in the composition of paper mill plant wastes resulted in the buildup
of partially unstabilized organic material in the sludge drying beds of a Kala—
mazoo, Michigan, municipal plant in 1967 [32]. This produced a putrid odor
that required costly countermeasures which reduced the effectiveness of the
plant. A serious fire broke out in one Ohio plant, presumably on ignition of
volatile industrial wastes [33]. In other plants, poisohous chemicals and me—
tallic compounds from industry have interfered with bacteria that decompose
wastes.
_
Other sanitary engineers argue that such episodes, although occaSionally
spectacular, have been limited in scope and will become increasingly rare as
stricter municipal codes are enacted to prevent or limit sewer dischage of
toxic substances, cils, and gases; the codes will force industries to pre—treat
wastes that contain such materials.
‘
Use of Public Money
Interwoven with these problems is the more subtle and still unresOlved issue
about the extent to which‘federal funds, which can be granted for 75 percent
of the total cost of treatment facilities, should «be-used for industrial waste
'
treatment capacity. Studies by the US. Department of the Interior and the
US. General Accounting Ofce (CAO), a Congressional watchdog agency,
have made it clear that a considerable amount of federal money
has been '
used in this Way [34]. In one study, 44 of 381 facilities were found to be de—
signed to treat wastes that were at least 75 percent of industrial origin”. Total
estimated cost of the 44 facilities was $46.3. million, with various federal
grants conttibuting about $17.2 million. In one case, grants totaling $806,000
were given to build a waste treatment plant for the sole use of afood—1‘irocess—
ing plant, apparently as an inducement‘for the plant to locate in one particu—
lar area. The treatment plant was built, but, ironically, had to be put out of
service in 1969 when the food—processing plant halted operations. In its own
survey, the CAO identied seven projects, out of 44 audited, which were for
the construction of municipal facilities to treat exclusively industrial wastes.
Federal construction grants for the seven projects totaled about $503,000. For
29 of the remaining 37 projects, industrial wastes comprised 50 percent br
more of either the total volume of waste or of the BOD removal capacity of
the plants—a percentage equivalent to the estimated national average of in—
dustrial waste loading in municipal waste treatment plants. Proponents admit
‘
that occasional questionable applications of funds for industrial waste treat—
ment have been made in the guise of municipal facilities, but they quickly
add that the distinction between municipal and domestic wastes is articial. ‘
_
_Ï-‘Ç
'
For example, commercial and service industries such as laundries, restaurants,
and hotels have customarily been included as legitimate sourCes
Was‘tes. The line between these commercial interests and
‘ËÎ
.
_
’
,.
_
Use ofPubthonz—æy 109