United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 1976
Clean Water
and
The Dairy Products
Industry
-------
16325
To Employees and Friends of the
Dairy Products Industry:
Tms booklet is about the dairy products industry
and water pollution. It is intended to help you un-
derstand how your industry—and each other indus-
try in the United States—is affected by a law passed
by Congress to reduce and eliminate water pollu-
tion.
There are more than 5,000 dairy products plants
in the United States. They employ about 198,000
men and women. They produce milk, cream, butter,
cheese, ice cream and a variety of other dairy
products.
But they also produce about 600 million pounds
of wastes each year. Those wastes include 400
million pounds of organic material, equivalent to
the sewage generated by six and one-half million
people.
Some 4,000 dairy plants send their waste dis-
charges to publicly-owned sewage facilities where
the pollutants are treated along with wastes from
homes and other industries. But about 1,400 dairy
plants discharge their wastes directly into water
bodies.
This booklet describes what those 1,400 dairy
plants must do to keep their wastes from polluting
the Nation's waters.
In non-technical language, this booklet explains
that:
• The technology exists to reduce water pollu-
tion from dairy plants to safe levels.
• Applying that technology costs money—but
most dairy plants can afford to make the necessary
investments to control pollution.
• Pollution control investments by most dairy
plants will have slight impact on their financial con-
dition and on the price consumers pay for dairy
products.
This booklet also describes why some dairy plants
may not be able to comply with pollution control
standards and why, unfortunately, some jobs in the
industry may be lost or require relocation.
In brief, this booklet discusses the facts of life
about water pollution—how it affects all of us, why it
must be controlled, and what the law requires the
dairy industry to do as its part of the national pro-
gram to clean up our Nation's waterways.
-------
The Problem
You and millions of other Americans have prob-
ably seen the warning signs. They say "no swim-
ming" or "no fishing" or "no boating" or "beach
closed" or "danger, do not drink the water."
The signs are there because the water is polluted:
With raw or poorly treated human wastes. With run-
off from city streets, farmlands, animal feedlots,
and mines. With leaks and spills from ships. And
with wastes from industries—including the dairy
industry.
Each year, some 402 million tons of pollutants
from human activities enter the Nation's waters.
That's almost two tons for every man, woman, and
child in the United States. The pollutants include
bacteria, viruses, organic materials, animal fats,
oil, acids, metals, pesticides, myriad other chemi-
cals, and hot water from power plant and industrial
boilers.
The pollutants make our waters unsightly. They
can make the water unfit for drinking, for irrigation,
-------
and for industrial use without expensive purification.
Some pollutants rob water of the oxygen required to
sustain fish and shellfish, making them unpalatable
or downright unsafe to eat. Some pollutants speed
the growth of algae that clog waterways, disinte-
grate, and give off noxious odors. Some pollutants
endanger health. Some pollutants endanger repro-
duction; they can cause deformities and death in
various life forms.
It is impossible to put a precise price tag on the
cost of water pollution. But there is no doubt that
water pollution exacts a heavy toll. Dirty water costs
the American people billions of dollars a year—in
water purification bills, in damage to fishery re-
sources, in lost recreation, and in other ways.
Water pollution, in short, is a major national
problem.
How did this come to pass? How did so many of
our waterways become open sewers?
For many years, we thought our waterways could
handle the waste products of human activities. The
wastes would decompose and disappear harmlessly,
we thought. But we learned otherwise. We learned
that we had overburdened the capacity of water to
cleanse itself. We learned that our streams, rivers
and lakes could no longer assimilate the sewage dis-
charges from increasing numbers of people and the
increasing waste discharges from industry, agricul-
ture, and mining. We learned that some pollutants
can never be assimilated; they persist and accumu-
late in nature, posing a continuing danger to public
and ecological health.
And after more than two decades of generally
ineffective attempts to control water pollution, we
also learned that a new approach was needed.
-------
To Solve the Problem
In response to widespread public concern about
the sad condition of the Nation's waterways, Con-
gress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. The 1972 act built upon
the experiences of earlier water pollution control
laws. The 1972 act brought dramatic changes.
What the 1972 law says, in essence, is that no-
body—no city or town, no industry, no government
agency, no individual—has a right to pollute our
water. What was acceptable in the past—the free
use of our waterways as a dumping ground for our
wastes—is no longer permitted. From now on, under
the 1972 law, we must safeguard our waterways
even if it means fundamental changes in the way we
manufacture products, produce farm crops, and
carry on the economic life of our communities.
Congress declared that the objective of the 1972
law is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
Congress established two goals in the 1972 law:
First, wherever possible by July 1983, achieve water
quality that's clean enough for swimming and other
recreational use, and clean enough to protect fish,
shellfish, and wildlife. Second, by 1985, no more
discharges of pollutants into our waters.
How do we get from the dirty water of today to
the clean water envisioned for the future? The law
set in motion a new national system of uniform con-
trols on the discharge of pollutants.
How this system applies to the dairy industry is
discussed later. First, consider how the national
system works, as mandated by Congress and carried
out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in cooperation with State and local govern-
ments:
• The law requires EPA to establish national
"effluent limitations" for industrial plants—including
dairy products plants. An "effluent limitation" is
simply the maximum amount of a pollutant that
anyone may discharge into a water body.
• By July 1, 1977, the law requires existing in-
dustries to reduce their pollutant discharges to the
level attainable by using the "best practicable"
water pollution control technology (BPT). BPT is
determined by averaging the pollution control effec-
tiveness achieved by the best plants in the industry.
• By July 1, 1983, the law requires existing in-
dustries to reduce their pollutant discharges still
-------
-------
more—to the level attainable by using the "best
available" pollution control technology (BAT). BAT
is based on the best pollution control procedures
economically achievable. If it is technologically and
economically feasible to do so, industries must
completely eliminate pollutant discharges by July
1, 1983.
• The law requires new industrial plants to limit
pollutant discharges to the level attainable by meet-
ing national "standards of performance" established
by EPA for new plants. A new plant must meet these
standards immediately, without waiting for 1977 or
1983. These new plant standards may require great-
er reduction of pollutant discharges than the 1977
and 1983 standards for existing plants. Where prac-
ticable, zero discharge of pollutants can be required.
• The law requires industrial facilities that send
their wastes to municipal treatment plants—as many
dairies do—to make sure the wastes can be ade-
quately treated by the municipal plant and will not
damage the municipal plant. In some industries,
discharges to municipal plants may thus have to be
"pre-treated." That is, the portion of the industrial
waste that would not be adequately treated or would
damage the municipal plant must be removed from
the waste before it enters the municipal system.
• The law does not tell any industry what tech-
nology it must use. The law only requires industries
to limit pollutant discharges to levels prescribed
by law.
• The law also says that if meeting the 1977 and
1983 requirements is not good enough to achieve
water quality standards, even tougher controls may
be imposed on dischargers.
• And while the law requires industries to meet
the national discharge standards set for 1977, 1983
and for new plants, the law also allows a State or
community to impose stricter requirements if it
wishes. The national standards are thus minimum
requirements that all industries must meet.
Setting limits on industrial discharges is only the
first step in controlling water pollution, of course.
The next step is to make sure those limits are met.
And the law provides the mechanism to do that.
-------
Permits
The key to applying the effluent limits to indus-
tries—including the dairy industry—is the national
permit system created by the 1972 law. (The tech-
nical name is the "national pollutant discharge
elimination system," or NPDES.)
Under the 1972 law, it is illegal for any industry
to discharge any pollutant into the Nation's waters
without a permit from EPA or from a State that has
an EPA-approved permit program. Every industrial
plant that discharges pollutants to a waterway must
therefore apply for a permit. Essentially all have
done so.
When issued, the permit regulates what may be
discharged, and the amount of each identified pol-
lutant. It sets specific limits on the effluent from
each plant. It commits the discharger to comply
with all applicable national effluent limits and with
any State or local requirements that may be im-
posed. If the industrial plant cannot comply im-
mediately, the permit contains a compliance sched-
ule—firm target dates by which pollutant discharges
will be reduced or eliminated as required. The
permit also requires dischargers to monitor their
wastes and to report the amount and nature of
wastes put into waterways.
The permit, in essence, is a contract between a
company and the government.
This combination of national effluent standards
and limits, applied to specific sources of water pol-
lution by individual permits, with substantial penal-
ties for failure to comply, constitutes the first effec-
tive nationwide system of water pollution conrol.
Now, what does all this mean to the dairy indus-
try? That's next.
-------
The Dairy Industry's Pollution Problems
The first step in applying the 1972 law to the
dairy industry is to identify the industry's water
pollution problems and to find out what can be
done to solve those problems.
To do that, EPA assembled all available informa-
tion on the dairy industry. That included two major
studies of the industry, one by a private research
firm, the other by a university. Those studies pro-
vided basic data about the industry and virtually
all available information on the technology of dairy
products processing. Then still more information
was sought.
Waste samples were taken and analyzed at dairy
plants, some by dairy companies, some by inde-
pendent laboratories, and some by EPA, with the
cooperation of dairy companies. Information was
obtained from State and local pollution control agen-
cies that have been monitoring dairy plants. Dairy
companies supplied additional data. Another uni-
versity survey was undertaken. The Dairy Industry
Committee sent out a voluntary questionnaire that
produced still more data. And there were visits to
dairy plants and conferences with dairy industry
officials.
Out of this extensive study emerged this picture:
• The more than 5,000 dairy plants in the United
States discharge about 53 billion gallons of waste
water each year—about 31 billion gallons into mu-
nicipal treatment plants, and 22 billion gallons di-
rectly into water bodies.
• That waste contains about 400 million pounds
of oxygen-robbing organic material and about 200
million pounds of solids.
• The major pollutant in waste discharges from
dairy plants is organic material. When dumped un-
treated into a stream or river, this organic material
is decomposed by micro-organisms in the water.
But in breaking down the organic pollution, the
micro-organisms consume oxygen in the water. That
degrades water by depleting its oxygen content.
Oxygen depletion, in turn, can have a catastrophic
impact on life in the water body, for fish and other
aquatic animals and plants must have dissolved
oxygen to survive. When all the oxygen in a water
body is used up, as frequently happens, the decay
of organic matter continues without oxygen. As a
result noxious gases such as hydrogen sulfide and
methane are produced.
-------
The measurement of pollutants that consume oxy-
gen in water is called "biochemical oxygen de-
mand," or BOD. Water with high BOD contains a
large amount of decomposing organic matter. A
total lack of dissolved oxygen due to high BOD can
produce a "dead" water body in which fish, for
instance, cannot live.
• Another major pollutant in dairy plant dis-
charges is suspended solid waste, such as coagu-
lated milk, particles of cheese curd, and in ice
cream plants, pieces of fruits and nuts. The mea-
surement of this pollutant is called "total suspended
solids," or TSS.
These solids discolor and cloud water. They
impair photo-synthesis in aquatic plants. They
can settle on the bottom. When they contain or-
ganic matter—as dairy wastes do—the bottom
deposits become sludge beds that can further
deplete the water's oxygen content. As the sludge
decomposes, it gives off gases that are toxic to
aquatic life and cause odor problems.
-------
In addition to the adverse esthetic and eco-
logical effects, suspended solids in water from
streams used by industry can interfere with many
industrial processes. They can cause foaming in
boilers, damage equipment, and impose high
purification costs on industries that need clean
water to make their products, such as the phar-
maceutical industry.
• The key point is this: Raw wastes from dairy
plants contain excessive amounts of organic ma-
terials and suspended solids. The wastes thus have
to be treated before they can be discharged into a
water body.
• Another key point is this: The major dairy in-
dustry water pollutants—organic material and sus-
pended solids—can be treated successfully.
• Other identified pollutants in dairy plant wastes
are phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorides, and heat. In
general, however, treating dairy wastes to reduce
the amount of organic material and suspended solids
will keep these other pollutants at satisfactory levels.
In isolated cases, some of the minor pollutants may
be critical and may need special treatment.
• Another consideration is the acid or alkali con-
tent of liquid wastes. This is called the "pH" of the
mixture. (Pure distilled water has a pH of about 7,
a strong acid solution has a pH of 1, and a strong
alkali solution has a pH of 14.)
The pH of many individual wastes within a dairy
plant fall outside the acceptable range. In general,
however, the wastes are neutralized when they are
mixed within a plant. And where necessary, pH can
be easily adjusted. Thus, pH poses no serious pol-
lution problem for the dairy industry.
• Finally, research also revealed that wastes
from most dairy plants can be successfully treated
by municipal treatment plants and pose no dangers
to the municipal plants. However, in some situa-
tions, a by-product of cheese-manufacturing—whey
—may create problems in some municipal treatment
plants. Typically, whey is composed of 93 percent
water and seven percent solids, including 5 percent
lactose. Where whey causes a problem, pretreat-
ment, as previously mentioned, may be required
by the municipality.
In sum, the dairy industry's water pollution prob-
lems were identified—and it was determined that
water pollution from dairy plants can be controlled
by use of machinery and methods already in use
in some plants. The technology exists to do the job. 10
-------
The Law and the Industry
With this information in hand, EPA's next step
was to prepare standards for dairy plants under the
1972 law. EPA did so, after considering many fac-
tors: the nature of dairy plant raw materials and
wastes; manufacturing processes; the availability
and cost of pollution control systems; energy re-
quirements and costs; the age and size of plants in
the industry; and the environmental implications of
controlling water pollution. (For instance, we would
gain nothing if, in controlling water pollution, we
created a new air or land pollution problem.)
The proposed regulations were issued December
20, 1973. They were sent to the industry and other
interested organizations for review and comment.
They were made public by publication in the Federal
Register. Comments were submitted by dairy com-
panies and dairy industry organizations, by State
agencies, and by Federal agencies. EPA then care-
fully analyzed the comments and made appropriate
changes in the standards.
On May 28, 1974, EPA issued the final standards
for dairy plants to follow in order to meet the re-
quirements of the 1972 law.
The standards are contained in an official govern-
ment regulation published in the Federal Register.
This regulation is supported by a detailed technical
document called the "Development Document for
Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Dairy Product Proc-
essing Point Source Category."
In brief, here's what the regulation does:
• Sets limits on identified pollutants that can
be legally discharged by small and large plants in
twelve sub-categories of the dairy products industry:
milk receiving stations;- and producers of market
milk; cultured products; butter; cottage and cream
cheese; natural and process cheese; fluid mix for
ice cream and other frozen desserts; ice cream and
frozen desserts and novelties; condensed milk; dry
milk; condensed whey; and dry whey.
• Zeroes in on the major dairy industry pollu- " ~
tants. It establishes maximum limitations for BOD
and suspended solids that dairy plants can discharge
during any one day, and on an average over a thirty-
day period.
• Sets limits that can be met by using the "best
practicable control technology currently available"—
the 1977 requirement.
• Sets more stringent limits that can be met by 11
-------
using the "best available technology economically
achievable"—the 1983 requirement. (For an ex-
ample of the difference between the 1977 and 1983
standards, consider this: By July 1, 1977, a large
milk receiving station must limit its discharge of
organic waste (BOD) to 0.048 of a pound per 100
pounds taken into the plant. By July 1, 1983, the
BOD discharge must be lowered to 0.010 of a
pound per 100 pounds taken into the plant.)
• Lessens the economic impact on small dairy
plants by easing their control requirements—a major
change from the originally proposed limits.
• Requires that the pH (acidity or alkalinity) of
dairy plant discharges be within the range of 6.0
to 9.0.
• Establishes performance standards that new
dairy plants must meet without waiting for 1977 or
1983. For the dairy industry, the new plant stand-
ard is the same as the 1983 standard for existing
plants. (In some industries, the new plant standard
may require greater control of pollutants, based on
new technology not readily applicable to existing
plants.)
• Allows flexibility in applying pollution controls
to meet the 1977 standard in special cases.
• Does not require zero discharge of any pol-
lutant by a dairy plant. Zero discharge is technically
possible in the industry. But the cost would be
prohibitive for most if not all plants in the industry.
• Does not tell dairy companies what technology
to use to meet regulations. The standards only re-
quire dairy companies to limit pollutant discharges
to levels found attainable by using best practicable
control technology.
An amendment to the regulation issued February
11, 1975, says this: Existing dairy products plants
that send their wastes to publicly-owned treatment
plants may do so without pre-treating the wastes. A
municipal plan may establish its own requirements,
however, to prevent problems. For example, equali-
zation may be required so as to prevent the dis-
charge of a heavy surge of whey which may upset
or interfere with the operation and efficiency of a
public treatment plant.
What does all this mean—to dairy companies, to
those of you who work in dairy plants, and to the
public? Please read on, for that's discussed next.
12
-------
Impact of the Guidelines
Now let's consider some questions that you may
very well be asking yourself at this point about the
impact of pollution control on the dairy industry.
1. Can dairy plants meet the 1977 limitations?
That is technologically, can they reduce their dis-
charges of pollutants to the levels required by 1977?
Based on all available information, the answer is
yes. Most existing dairy plants can meet the 1977
standards. In fact, it's estimated that 10-20 percent
of some 1,400 dairy plants that are required to meet
the 1977 standards are already doing so. It's esti-
mated that by meeting the 1977 standards, dairy
plants will reduce their discharges of organic ma-
terials by about 90-95 percent, and of suspended
solids by about 85-90 percent. And meeting the
1983 standards will then bring even greater re-
ductions in pollutant discharges.
Moreover, existing dairy plants that do not want
to invest in pollution control equipment may have
the option, depending on where they are located, to
tie into a municipal treatment plant. And the tech-
nology exists for municipal plants to handle dairy
wastes safely. Most dairy plants are small and most
—about 90 percent—are already connected to mu-
nicipal treatment systems. The reason: It's generally
good economics to share in the costs of a larger,
more efficient treatment plant than for a small plant
to go it alone.
2. Can dairy plants meet the 1983 limitations?
That is technologically, can they reduce their pol-
lutant discharge to the lower levels required by
1983?
Again the answer is yes. Most existing dairy
plants can meet the 1983 standards. In fact, sev-
eral plants in the industry are already surpassing
the 1983 standards. They are now discharging
cleaner waste water than called for by the 1983
standards.
3. Can new plants meet the new source perform-
ance standards? - -
Yes. Good management and housekeeping with-
in a plant can reduce the amount of wastes gen-
erated in the first place. That plus installation and
effective use of known and proven waste treatment
processes can keep dairy plant pollutant discharges
at or below the levels required by regulation.
4. Can the dairy industry afford to meet the 1977
water pollution control requirements?
Again the answer is yes. Most dairy companies 13
-------
can afford to do so.
It's estimated that meeting the 1977 standards
will cost the dairy industry about $90 million. (Part
of that has already been invested, for many required
facilities are already installed.) Annual operating
costs are estimated at about $10-15 million. The
new investment in pollution control facilities
amounts to from 5-25 percent of the industry's
present investment in plant and equipment; the
exact amount will vary depending on the type of
dairy products manufactured and the size of a plant.
Put another way, a $l-million dairy plant may
have to spend anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000
for pollution control. And in terms of annual costs,
the pollution control pricetag will vary from 0.2 per-
cent to 1.5 percent of sales. For a dairy company
with sales of $1 billion a year, the cost of pollution
control may thus range from $2-15 million a year.
5. Can the dairy industry afford to meet the 1983
water pollution control requirements?
Again the answer is yes. Most dairy companies
can afford to do so.
It's estimated that added investment and annual
cost to meet the 1983 standards will be less than
half of that required for 1977. Moreover, much of
14
-------
the additional investment can be returned in the
form of valuable materials recovered by using better
in-plant controls.
Indeed, some dairy plants may find that their net
cost to control water pollution may be almost zero.
And a few dairy plants may actually realize a net
profit on their pollution control investments, thanks
to recycling—the recapture, sale, and use of ma-
terials now being discharged as wastes.
So far we've talked about dairy plants that can-
technologically and financially—meet the 1977 and
1983 standards. Now a tougher question:
6. What about dairy plants that cannot financially
meet the 1977 standards? What will happen to
them?
About 100 dairy plants may have to close down.
They are marginal and relatively inefficient. Indeed,
some of those small plants may have already closed
—for reasons not related to pollution control—since
these estimates were made in early 1974.
For the men and women affected, the loss wi!! be
real, of course. It will mean relocating to another
job in the dairy industry, or perhaps entering an-
other career. For some, it may mean moving to
another community. For others, it may mean early
retirement.
EPA recognized the very real human problem. As
originally proposed, the 1977 standards could have
forced about 573 plants, employing several thous-
and workers, to shut down. The final 1977 standards
for small plants were therefore eased. Any further
easing of the 1977 standard would have meant the
continuing discharge of raw wastes—or business as
usual, regardless of water pollution. And business
as usual with water pollution is simply no longer
environmentally tolerable and is thus not allowed
under the 1972 law. It should be noted that the
regulation will create new jobs in construction and
maintenance of new pollution control facilities.
In sum, the price of restoring and maintaining the
quality of our waterways for the benefit of all may
indeed be costly to those who can only stay in
business by continuing to pollute.
7. What about the 1983 standards? Will any
more dairy plants have to close because of those
standards?
Here the answer is no. No additional plant clos-
ings are expected as a result of the 1983 standards.
8. How will the 1977 and 1983 standards affect
consumers? What impact will they have on the price
of dairy products? 15
-------
Here are some estimates for several dairy
products:
Butter—It's estimated that meeting the 1977 and
1983 standards may cause a 1.1 percent increase
in the wholesale price of butter. If that increase is
passed on to consumers, it would mean an increase
in the retail price of butter of less than one cent a
pound.
Cheese—It's estimated that there may be a 0.4
percent increase in the wholesale price of cheese.
If passed on to consumers, that would mean an in-
crease of three-tenths of a cent per pound of cheese.
Milk—About 90 percent of the large milk proces-
sors are already linked to municipal treatment
systems. For the remaining large milk plants that
discharge their wastes directly into water bodies,
it's estimated that meeting the 1977 and 1983
standards may cause the price of milk to increase
by one-tenth of 1 percent. For a half-gallon of milk
that now retails for 75 cents, that would mean a
price hike of less than a tenth of a penny.
Ice Cream—About 90 percent of large ice cream
plants are already linked to municipal treatment
systems. For the remaining plants that are direct
dischargers, it's estimated that meeting the 1977
and 1983 standards may raise prices by 0.9 to 1.2
percent. For a half-gallon of ice cream that retails
for $1.69, that could mean a price increase of up
to two cents.
16
-------
Canned Milk—It's estimated that there may be a
0.6 percent increase in the price of canned milk. If
passed on to consumers, that would mean an in-
crease of one-tenth of a cent per twenty-cent can of
milk.
Thus, water pollution control requirements for
the dairy industry will have a negligible impact on
the price of dairy products.
9. What about the productive capacity that will
be lost if about a hundred dairy plants do indeed
shut down?
It's estimated that those plants account for only
0.2 percent of the industry's production. The slight
drop in the industry's production can be more than
made up by other plants.
Thus, water pollution control requirements for
the dairy industry will have no long-range reper-
cussions in terms of supplies of dairy products or
industry growth. And the standards will not affect
the Nation's balance of trade with other countries;
they will not affect exports of dairy products and
will not cause an increase in imports of dairy
products.
In sum, except for about 100 small plants that are
already having trouble staying in business, the U.S.
dairy industry can meet the water pollution control
requirements mandated by the 1972 law. The result
will be cleaner water for all of us to enjoy and less
waste of usable dairy products.
Some Final Words
The effluent guidelines for the dairy industry and
other industries are only part of the comprehensive
program set in motion by the 1972 law to clean up
the Nation's waters. Among other things, the law
also requires municipal treatment plants to meet
certain discharge standards by 1977 and 1983. The
law increased Federal aid to help local governments
build sewage treatment facilities. The law estab-
lished planning procedures for State and local gov-
ernments to more effectively control water pollution
from all sources, in cooperation with the Federal
government. The law streamlined and strengthened
the enforcement provisions of the water pollution
control program.
In total, the 1972 law provides formidable new
tools "to restore and maintain the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
With the cooperation and hard work of State and
local governments, and of industry, progress has
already been made toward cleaning up our rivers, 17
-------
streams, lakes and harbors. Industries and govern-
ments at all levels have already invested consider-
able amounts of money to reduce and eliminate
water pollution. But much still remains to be done.
Both industry and government will have to invest
still more money if the clean water program is to be
successful—if we are to have water that is safe and
healthful for drinking, for use by industry and agri-
culture, for swimming and boating, for fish and
wildlife.
It's estimated that the total cost of the water
cleanup program will be $51 billion dollars in the
ten-year period from 1973 through 1982. That's
$5.1 billion a year to clean up the Nation's waters-
compared to the $13 billion a year that water pollu-
tion now costs the American people. Clearly, water
pollution control is an economic bargain as well as
an environmental necessity.
EPA Administrator Russell E. Train has summed
it up in these words:
"The benefits of our pollution control expendi-
tures far exceed their costs. We really do not have
the option of not paying environmental costs at all.
We have the option only of deciding in which form
we shall pay them: in the form of pollution control
costs or increasing health hazards, of higher elec-
tric bills or higher doctor bills. Moreover, to the
degree that we put off paying the costs of cleanup
and control, we not only allow the buildup of
pollutants to increasingly more dangerous levels but
ensure that the task of control and cleanup will be
far more difficult and costly."
-------
How To Cut Wastes By Really Trying
Engineers estimate that about half the water
pollutants generated in some dairy plants can be
eliminated by improved in-plant procedures and
better housekeeping in the plant. Some examples:
More attention can be given to controlling spills.
Start-up and shut-down operations can be reduced
and controlled. Some raw materials can be sal-
vaged and recycled instead of discharged. Some
by-products can be salvaged and sold as feed or
food products instead of discharged. Product loss
and water use can be reduced by education pro-
grams for management and plant operators. Clean-
ing operations can be made more efficient and thus
the amount of water and cleaning chemicals used
can be reduced. And plant design changes can also
produce less waste in some dairy plants.
Here's what happened at one dairy plant that
worked at better waste control through in-plant and
housekeeping changes: In 1968, the plant dis-
charged 86,000 gallons of wastewater, containing
1,950 pounds of organic wastes, each day. By 1972,
production was up and the wastewater flow was up
to 110,000 gallons per day—but the organic waste
discharge had dropped to 900 pounds a day.
The Simplest Method
"Plant people should exhaust the in-plant
short-of-treatment approach as the soundest
and simplest method of controlling a waste
problem. In addition to coming to grips with
the pollution problem, such action will also
result in cost reductions through improved
production efficiencies, reductions in losses,
and reductions in water usage."
—Kenneth S. Watson, Director of Environmental
Control, Kraftco Corporation, Glenview, III.
19
-------
Want More Information?
If you'd like additional information about the dairy
industry and water pollution, or about water pollu-
tion in general, the following publications are avail-
able from the sources shown:
"Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards Application for the Dairy Products
Processing Industry Point Source Category." Reprint
from May 28, 1974 Federal Register. EPA. Free.
"Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards for Certain Categories." Reprint from
February 11, 1975 Federal Register. EPA. Free.
"Highlights of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972." EPA. Free.
"The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu-
aries Act of 1972—Ocean Dumping Highlights."
EPA. Free.
"A Drop to Drink." EPA. Free.
"A Citizen's Guide to Clean Water." EPA. Free.
"Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Dairy Product Processing Point Source Cate-
gory." U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D. C. 20402. GPO Stock No. 5501-00898, GPO
Catalog No. EP 1.8/3:014. Price-$2.05.
"Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines for the
Dairy Products Industry." Economic Analysis Div-
ision (PM-220), EPA. Free.
To obtain single copies of the free publications
available from EPA, write: EPA Public Information
Center (PM-215), Washington, D. C. 20460.
20
------- |