Keyword or Search: <% Dim MyValue2 Randomize MyValue2 = Int((6 * Rnd) + 1) Set Conn = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection") Conn.Open Session("trsa_ConnectionString2") MySQL = "Select * From HouseAds Where HouseAdID Like '%" & MyValue2 & "%' " Set Conn = Conn.Execute(MySQL) %> "> " alt="" width=130 height=85 border=1 align=top> <% conn.close %>	Technology investigated for cleaning effluent TRSA's Waste Water Task Force investigated two systems during 1979, finding promise in a cellulose fiber filter "borrowed" from another industry, but turning thumbs c on a micro-bubble gas dispersion unit. Here's a report of the group's busy year. By Joseph R. Schuh TRSA's Waste Water Task Force has been very active in 1979 — charged with the responsibility of investigating waste water treatment technology; representing the industry with EPA and other governmental agencies; and keeping the industry informed of developments in the areas of hardware, technology, economic considerations, and government regulations. When investigating new waste water treatment technology being tested in the industry, the task force uses as a guideline three criteria: Can the waste water of a laundry plant be treated by existing pretreatment systems to a level that meets municipal requirements, Can pretreatment systems economically operate, i.e., reduce municipal surcharges to offset cost of operation, and Can the waste water treatment technology being investigated do the job as well, better, or more economically than existing pretreatment systems? INVESTIGATING TECHNOLOGY Based upon these criteria, the potential of new waste water pollution control technology, such as micro-bubble gas dispersion being tested in an industrial rental plant in York, Pa., was investigated. Two industry waste water consultants and TRSA staff looked at the pilot model installation in York and came to the following conclusion: The plant's waste water effluent was not dissimilar from the effluent found in other industrial laundering complexes. This excludes industrial laundering plants that wash extremely high volumes of printer and shop towels. The local publicly owned treatment work's discharge limitations are not more stringent than those found in other localities. Prime concern of the POTW is in the area of oil, grease, and heavy metals. Existing pretreatment systems and technology can reduce this plant's effluent discharge to meet the local POTW's discharge limitations. The new waste water pollution control technology (micro-bubble gas dispersion) was determined not to be "new technology" but in all probability just new methodology. The pilot model of the micro-bubble gas dispersion unit failed to operate and produce the expected results at any time during the visit. Attempts to produce the expected floc in the laboratory were not successful. Laboratory results should be easily reproducible before they are field tested. Laboratory reports of pollutant levels in the waste water effluent and influent could not be used as a basis for evaluation. Incorrect levels were reported and this was determined to be caused by faulty sample preservation. In summary, the team' opinion was that effluent from the industrial laundry in York could be treated with present technology and hardware to meet the local discharge limitations imposed by the community. The type of technology being tested in the plant could add nothing to economies or to the "state-of-art" as known today in the industry. NEW APPROACHES TRSA's Waste Water Task Force is also interested in new technology that has not been tried in the industry. Since general statements can be made concerning most industry waste water, possible alternatives can be evaluated. During a 20-plant industry survey in 1978 to. determine what the waste water of the industry looked like, TRSA hired the United States Testing Co. to evaluate technology being used in other industries. Its representative learned that within the pulp and paper industry, cellulose fibers remove a number of contaminants from waste water. In this context United States Testing Co. working in cooperation with Media General Research, a research organization within the pulp and paper industry, evaluated the effects of the pulp and paper industry's cellulose fiber treatment on industrial laundering waste water. Treatment was effected in the laboratory by mixing a small amount of cellulose fiber with samples of the industry's waste water, then filtering the mixture through a wire mesh screen. Fibers were permitted to form a filtering mat across the screen. This cellulose fiber media allowed treated effluent to pass through while removing contaminants. Based on this laboratory experiment it was determined that cellulose fiber could effect high removals of pollutants. The fiber matting showed that it could be easily compressed and dewatered to small volumes. However, since this was only a minor laboratory experiment, the concept required greater scope to determine optimum treatment conditions. TRSA's Waste Water Task Force decided to field-test a pilot scale project using cellulose fiber. This test was conducted in a Detroit textile rental plant. The results of this testing indicated that: Cellulose fiber works better in cold water than in hot water. Cellulose fiber cannot be reused in the waste water without prior conditioning to remove pollutants that have been absorbed. Cellulose fiber contains starch and clay which must be removed before it can be used as a pollutant filtering agent. The starch increases biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), a polluting condition subject to sewer surcharges. Clay is an unknown entity at this time. It could possibly have an important role in the removal of metals. Further testing is necessary to determine its feasibility. From the data developed using cellulose fibers it was shown that effective pollutant removal was accomplished on cadmium, lead, and zinc. These are important priority pollutants and the reductions were significant. The study indicated that reductions of cadmium were in the order of 80 per cent, lead 64 per cent, and zinc 62 per cent. The next group of pollutants that indicate good removal capacities require further testing before a direct conclusion can be drawn. The reason is that the influent pollutant level in the waste water of the control study was higher than that in the waste water study using cellulose fiber. However, initial data indicate that pollutant removals of oil/grease are 36 per cent, total suspended solids 87 per cent, and copper 41 per cent. Two priority pollutants do not seem to be effected by the use of cellulose fiber. These pollutants are total chromium and nickel. The general results of this study demonstrated potential effectiveness and resulted in a decision by the TRSA Waste Water Task Force that further investigation of the potential of using cellulose fiber as a method of pretreating waste water should be done. The study did evaluate several things simultaneously: Compatibility of cellulose fiber with existing waste water treatment systems, cellulose fiber reuse potential, handling and resultant sludge collection problems, adsorption versus filtration capability, and effectiveness in hot versus cold water. The results of the study also provided direction in several areas: Cellulose fiber is compatible with the mechanical structure at the selected textile rental plant. The fibers were mixed in an equalization tank prior to being pumped through a solids pump to the wire mesh screen. The fibers were: Easily mixed with an air knife and a suspension was therefore maintained. Pumping the waste water/fiber mixture did not cause a plumbing or pump problem. The fiber was compatible with various size screen meshes ranging from 80 to 150. Fibers passing through the screen did not cause problems in the heat reclaimer. The cellulose fiber demonstrated a reuse potential under properly controlled conditions. The fiber was recycled from the collection screen back into the equalization pit during parts of the study. The data indicate that changes in temperature or chemical conditions result in a release of many contaminants previously collected by the fibers. If this process can be controlled, there is some potential of developing a continuously recycling cellulose fiber mass. Additionally, the mechanical aspects of recycling fiber proved to be simple. Sludge (fiber and contaminants) collection and handling problems were investigated. The study resulted in use of approximately 110 gallons of treated fiber. The fiber was either recycled through the system or collected in an available tank. The used fiber collected in the tank did not present a water retention problem. Although the fiber was thoroughly wetted, water did not separate from the fiber during the several hours of study to create an additional problem. The resulting sludge was also capable of being squeezed dry in a press after use. The study was designed to address adsorption versus filtration capacity questions. Studies were performed under two separate modes: Allowing the screening device to vibrate and thereby not allowing a fiber mat to build up. This mode studied adsorption. Allowing the mesh screen to remain stationary, thereby allowing a fiber mat to build. This mode studied the combination of adsorption and use of the fiber as a filter aid. Data indicate that both processes, adsorption and filtration, occur. There was a reduction in contaminants when no filter mat existed. There was increased reduction when the filter mat existed and there was still greater reduction when the fibers were allowed to build up on a thicker filter mat. The study addressed the question of effectiveness in cold versus hot water. Work performed to date on laundry waste water is normally at room temperature. To learn the effect of cold versus hot water on removal efficiency, a portion of the study was performed on hot waste water and a portion on cold waste water. The data indicate that the hot water reduced the removal efficiency (probably the adsorption phenomena). The hot water also caused a release of previously collected contaminants. This information generates concern for the use of cellulose fiber with hot recycled water unless the temperature versus collection phenomena can be controlled with chemical or physical treatment of the fibers. Generally, the laboratory study and this field study confirmed that cellulose fiber may offer an alternative technology to laundry waste water treatment and recycling. The field test study clearly demonstrated that the use of cellulose fiber is compatible with equipment and plumbing already in place at many plants and would not result in a need for mechanical equipment not currently available. At this time, TRSA's Waste Water Task Force is looking at a proposal to further investigate the practicality of cellulose fiber in treating the industry's waste water. It is necessary to determine the potential usefulness of cellulose fiber as an alternative technology in laundry waste water treatment and reuse. The current proposal is designed to be cost effective, having built into it go/no-go decision points so either the direction of the project or the continuation of the project can be altered. The successful use of cellulose fiber in the industry's waste water as a principle of treatment is subject to several identifiable variables including: Presence of surfactants, pH, water softness, temperature, concentration of target contaminants, and total dissolved solids concentration. Other variables that have not been defined may require study as well. Whether TRSA's Waste Water Task Force will continue its investigation of the potential use of cellulose fiber as a pretreatment aid is unknown at this time. A decision probably will be made at the next regular meeting based upon an evaluation of the progress to date. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS In the area of government regulation, TRSA's Waste Water Task Force has had a continuing dialogue with the Effluent Guidelines Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The group has continuously maintained the position that our industry needs no further regulation since we are adequately regulated by General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing and New Sources of Pollution (40 CFR 403). As the court-mandated deadline for issuance of Effluent Guide-me Regulations for our industry approached, the EPA stepped up its efforts to write the industry's guidelines. the EPA has also contracted world out to independent organizations to collect data. One of the contractors was Monsanto Research Corp. of Dayton, Ohio which was responsible for investigating pretreatment equipment presently installed in member plants, the technology being used, and the cost of installing pretreatment equipment. - On Sept. 12, Robert B. Schaffer, director of Effluent Guidelines Division, EPA, requested TRSA to review and comment on the technical document submitted by Monsanto. The following is the formal reply that TRSA made to the EPA in response to this document: Mr. Elwood E. Martin Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552) Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. Street S. W (East Tower) Washington, D. C. 20460 Re.- Technical Support Document for Auto and Other Laundry Industry. Dear Mr. Martin: The Textile Rental Services Association of America (TRSA) represents its member textile rental companies. Member companies are engaged in commercial laundering (SIC 7211), linen supply (SIC 7213), industrial laundering (SIC 7218), or some combination of these Standard Industrial Classifications. Member companies rent, launder, maintain and service hygienically clean textile items to millions of customers in commerce, industry, and the professions. TRSA recommends that proposed effluent limitation guidelines for the textile rental industry be dropped because additional regulation is redundant and a source of severe economic hardship. All sub-categories of the Auto and Other Laundry Industry (SIC 7210) are adequately covered for purposes of regulation and control by General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution (40 CFR 403). Further, an economic burden to members of our industry would occur because of the high capital costs, space requirements, and lack of space availability for installation and operation of pretreatment equip-men t. TRSA 's specific comments in response to a request by Robert B. Schaffer, Director of Effluent Guidelines Division, on the Technical Support Document for Auto and Other Laundry Industry, dated August 16, 1979 are: Capital costs of pretreatment equipment are understated, Space requirements of pretreatment equipment are understated, and Space for installation and operation of pretreatment equipment is not available in members' existing plant facilities. Space Availability: TRSA agrees with Monsanto Research Corp. in its conclusion that site space is unavailable in textile rental plants. if pretreatment equipment has to be installed, new buildings will be needed to contain the equipment. TRSA contacted 29 member plants located in various geo graphical areas. Only three plants had space available to use for the installation of pretreatment equipment and two already had the equipment installed. In the remaining locations new buildings would have to be built, truck or employee parking space eliminated where available, and/or new land purchased. The textile rental industry is adequately regulated under Pretreatment Regulation (40 CFR 403). Further pretreatment regulations would be too costly for our industry. Therefore, TRSA recommends that any proposed effluent limitation guidelines for the textile rental industry be dropped. Indeed, TRSA's Waste Water Task Force was kept busy during the year 1979 protecting TRSA's member interests as it has in prior years. It has investigated new technology, new methodology and hardware, and responded to the EPA at every stage of development of effluent limitation guidelines for the industry. The year 1980 will find the task force continuing its work as vigorously as ever.