from the Farmers Chemical Association plant in Harrison, Tennessee,
prompted criticism from the Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Boardm
1968. The Board charged that nitrogenous materials from the plant con
taminated the domestic water supply for Chattanooga, a short distance down
stream on the Tennessee River. This pressure
moved the oicials of the
erative plant to introduce a closed—cycle wastewater system—the rst in the
chemical fertizer industry [7]. Plant waste water was collected in largeset—
tling ponds, ltered to remove undissolved solid waste, and then put in
tact with special resins to remove the ammonium and the nitrate ions sepa—
rately by a process called ion exchange. The resins were later treated
ically to release the ions, and this allowed recovery of about six tons
ammonium nitrate daily. The salvaged ammonium nitrate solution was
blended to formulate the plant’s nal product—a liquid mixture of ammomum,âllll
nitrate, urea, and water to be applied directly to soil.
_. ,,i[……
Before
system was installed, an average of 900,000 gallons of
waste“â
water was discharged each day from the Tennessee plant. The converswnlllll
eliminated the discharge. Furthermore, rain water collected in the settlmgî…
ponds compensated for water losses from evaporation or other causes
thus eliminated the need to tap the Tennessee River. In other words, use of
"
‘
water at the plant was internalized to reduce reliance on free—owing watersâll
"
to a minimum; this proved nancially benecial to the plant in terms of re‘.
covered product and environmentally benecial in terms of reduced
,_
A closed—cycle wastewater system appears to have limited application
the overall manufacture of ammonium nitrate, however. In 1971, only 31 of
58 US. producers made a solution as opposed to a solid product. The other 27
‘
companies would have to dispose of the ammonium nitrate solution recov—
ered from the ion exchange resins since the substance would still be in a waste
rather than in a Commercially usable form insofar as their particular
-
factung processes were concerned. It must also be remembered that
.,
genous fertilizer, when used in excessive amounts on the soil, may leak into
1
and thereby contaminate surface waters.
;;î' ,
Closed—cycle use of water in other industries is gaining favor, but total
recycling
is fare. Fmthermore, reduced withdrawal of water as the result of
recyclmg
is offset by intensied industrial water use for increased producti0n
of goods [8] ._
At the same time, the trend in pollution control investment in
.
dUSÜ'Ÿ hà_Syîb€ÊCn toward purchase of equipment to treat waste water rather ' _
,
than îÇWŒd
of manufacturing processes to reduce pollution at the -
“l
source. A surveyof 789 companies in seven major industrial categories
| Ï
an
nearly 240 percent in annual capitalexpenditures for pollution
[
control during
t0tal of $33.2 million was‘°s'pent in 1965, coma {][
to $1126m11hon1n 1969). Analysis, of the expènditures,
[
that“The
»0f
eXPeñditure
devoted
to strstfwsws ssssmsm— fâèihties, and only f…“?
sms sorties mwa—d d1,gh,……fæ… psossss whsh [
would ss.51.,t in gmantPHtdü[9l :
..
'
1
…
Ï:”£L1[
The Limits of;Pqtçhwgr,k,_…;
,
…
[
«
“
prompted criticism from the Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Boardm
1968. The Board charged that nitrogenous materials from the plant con
taminated the domestic water supply for Chattanooga, a short distance down
stream on the Tennessee River. This pressure
moved the oicials of the
erative plant to introduce a closed—cycle wastewater system—the rst in the
chemical fertizer industry [7]. Plant waste water was collected in largeset—
tling ponds, ltered to remove undissolved solid waste, and then put in
tact with special resins to remove the ammonium and the nitrate ions sepa—
rately by a process called ion exchange. The resins were later treated
ically to release the ions, and this allowed recovery of about six tons
ammonium nitrate daily. The salvaged ammonium nitrate solution was
blended to formulate the plant’s nal product—a liquid mixture of ammomum,âllll
nitrate, urea, and water to be applied directly to soil.
_. ,,i[……
Before
system was installed, an average of 900,000 gallons of
waste“â
water was discharged each day from the Tennessee plant. The converswnlllll
eliminated the discharge. Furthermore, rain water collected in the settlmgî…
ponds compensated for water losses from evaporation or other causes
thus eliminated the need to tap the Tennessee River. In other words, use of
"
‘
water at the plant was internalized to reduce reliance on free—owing watersâll
"
to a minimum; this proved nancially benecial to the plant in terms of re‘.
covered product and environmentally benecial in terms of reduced
,_
A closed—cycle wastewater system appears to have limited application
the overall manufacture of ammonium nitrate, however. In 1971, only 31 of
58 US. producers made a solution as opposed to a solid product. The other 27
‘
companies would have to dispose of the ammonium nitrate solution recov—
ered from the ion exchange resins since the substance would still be in a waste
rather than in a Commercially usable form insofar as their particular
-
factung processes were concerned. It must also be remembered that
.,
genous fertilizer, when used in excessive amounts on the soil, may leak into
1
and thereby contaminate surface waters.
;;î' ,
Closed—cycle use of water in other industries is gaining favor, but total
recycling
is fare. Fmthermore, reduced withdrawal of water as the result of
recyclmg
is offset by intensied industrial water use for increased producti0n
of goods [8] ._
At the same time, the trend in pollution control investment in
.
dUSÜ'Ÿ hà_Syîb€ÊCn toward purchase of equipment to treat waste water rather ' _
,
than îÇWŒd
of manufacturing processes to reduce pollution at the -
“l
source. A surveyof 789 companies in seven major industrial categories
| Ï
an
nearly 240 percent in annual capitalexpenditures for pollution
[
control during
t0tal of $33.2 million was‘°s'pent in 1965, coma {][
to $1126m11hon1n 1969). Analysis, of the expènditures,
[
that“The
»0f
eXPeñditure
devoted
to strstfwsws ssssmsm— fâèihties, and only f…“?
sms sorties mwa—d d1,gh,……fæ… psossss whsh [
would ss.51.,t in gmantPHtdü[9l :
..
'
1
…
Ï:”£L1[
The Limits of;Pqtçhwgr,k,_…;
,
…
[
«
“