Chlorine - bane or benefit? : Proceedings of a conference on

218 Pages·2013·3.25 MB·English

CHLORINE -
BANE OR BENEFIT?
Proceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries
Chesapeake Bay
Foundation
/y^MCitizens Program
for the
Chesapeake Bay
DRC Chesapeake
Research
Consortium
April 1982
g-s-so'vy
201001482
CHLORINE - BANE OR BENEFIT?
Proceedings of a Conference
On The Uses of Chlorine In Estuaries
May 27 and 28, 1981
Mary Washington College
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Sponsored by
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay
With additional support from
German Marshall Fund
Maryland Association of Bay Pilots
Office of Environmental Programs, Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April, 1982
Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Research Citizens Program for
Foundation Consortium, Inc. Chesapeake Bay
162 Prince George Street 4800 Atwell Road 6600 York Road
Annapolis, MD Shady Side, MD Baltimore, MD
21404 20764 21212
FRONTISPIECE
CHLORINE LOADINGS FROM SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANTS
ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
KEY
- 1-100 lbs/day
CHESAPEAKE
SCALE OF MILES
10 0 10 BAY
Data from July-Dec. 1979
Prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation from data from MD/DHMH and VA/SWCB
Page 1
PREFACE
The proceedings of the conference titled "Chlorine: Bane or
Benefit?" are recorded in this publication. As the title implies,
the purpose of the conference was to focus attention on the benefits
and problems associated with a wide range of chlorine uses in the
Chesapeake Bay and to investigate and .assess possible alternatives
to those uses of chlorine. Conference planners directed the attention
of the speakers and audience toward the establishment of guidelines for
chlorine use which will help to ensure the optimal protection of the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
The sponsoring organizations found a useful common cause in this
effort to broaden public understanding and improve future management
decisions. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is a private, non-profit
public interest organization dedicated to promoting the sound management
of Chesapeake Bay's natural resources, principally through environmental
education and resource representation. The Chesapeake Research Consortium
is a planning and coordination center for research on the Bay among the
University of Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University, the Smithsonian
Institution and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The Citizens
Program for Chesapeake Bay is a private, non-profit organization of
organizations dedicated to citizen participation in decisions affecting
use and management of the Bay's resources.
In addition to financial support from the sponsoring organizations,
contributions were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the Maryland Association of Bay Pilots, and the German Marshall Fund. The
Office of Environmental Programs of the Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene generously arranged for printing of these Proceedings. A
ten dollar registration fee was also received from each of the 150 audience
participants.
The Conference Committee appreciates the essential contributions of
the speakers and participants to the conference. The committee Would also
like to thank Mary Brady, Mary Tod Winchester, Kitty Cox, Jennifer Young,
Helen Collins, the administration of Mary Washington College and the staff
members of the three sponsoring organizations for their dedicated work.
Conference Committee
L. Eugene Cronin, Chairman -
William C. Baker
Charles W. Coale, Jr.
Mary E. Kasper
David B. McGrath
J. Kevin Sullivan
' Page 2
CONTENTS j
INTRODUCTION page
Partnership for the Bay, or "Who Cares About Chlorine?"
John Gotschalk 4
Major Uses of Chlorination (An Ecologist's Perspective)
Wiliam P_. Davis 8
Chlorine Chemistry
George j*. Helz 19
EFFECTS
Acute Toxicity Potential of Chlorination in Estuarine Waters
Mori s Roberts, Jr 28
Sublethal Effects of Chlorine-Produced Oxidents on Estuarine
Organisms (Abstract)
Chae Laird 36
The Association of Chlorine Pollution and Over-Grazing in
Destroying the Aquatic Plant Community of the Upper Half
of the Potomac Estuary (Abstract)
Horace Wester 37
On the Risks (Abstract)
Victor Cabel1i 39
The EPA Position (Abstract)
Alan Rubin 41
Discussion of Effects 43
A CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE
A Challenge to Chlorination
Peter H^ Garnett 57
Disinfection of Sewage Effluent - The American Approach
Vi ncent 01 i vi eri 70
Responses to Dr. Garnett's Questions
Catherine I. Ri 1 ey 81
Evelyn M7 Hai ley 81
Wi11iam M. Eichbaum 82
ALTERNATIVES
Sewage Chlorination: "Status Quo"
C. M. Sawyer 84
Dechlorination of Wastewater: State-of-the-Art Discussion
Davi d vh Greene 98
Ozone: Alternative to Chlorine
Bruce Burns 101
Page 3
Page
Ultraviolet Light as a Disinfection Alternative
0. Karl Scheible 106
Bromochlori nation
Norman LeBlanc -j 13
Disinfection in Wastewater Treatment Under the EPA's
Innovative Alternative Program
James F. Wheeler 123
Economic Aspects of Alternative Modes of Disinfection
Mark Alpert and John D. Bonono 133
Wastewater Treatment and Disinfection Alternatives for
the Chesapeake Bay Seafood Processing Industry
Russel B.Brinsfield 13g
Chlorine Use in Broiler Processing Plants - Status Quo
Lewis E. Car 147
The Uses of Chlorine and Potential Alternatives in the
Tri-State Vegetable Processing Industry
Donald V. Schlimme 1^3
Alternatives to Chlorination for Controlling Biofouling in
Cooling Water Systems of Steam Electric Generating Stations
Dennis T. Burton, Lenwood W. Hall, Jr 157
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES 170
CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS 178
DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
David McGrath 1 gg
Calmet Sawyer 1 on
Evelyn Hailey 1^
Catherine I_. Ri 1 ey 1 g2
James B. Coulter - 1g5
Cranston Morgan 152
Wi Hi am M. Ei chbaum and Mary Jo Garreis 10^
Michael Bellanca 199
CLOSING COMMENTS
L. Eugene Cronin 202
REGISTRANTS one
Page 4
A PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BAY, OR "WHO CARES ABOUT CHLORINE?"
John S. Gottschalk
Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
Hampton, Virginia 23669
People have become accustomed to the idea that nothing is
sacred. There is always someone around the corner about to
debunk a hero or prove that a good thing we have taken for
granted is really evil. These periodic revelations have almost
become a bit boring or worse yet, frustrating, because the
average individual really has no basis for making an intellegent
judgment about the credentials of the person doing the debunking--
the iconoclast. Therefore, we face the inevitable quandry of
not knowing what to believe or what to do about such relevations.
Part of our dilemma, of course, lies in the mania of the
public media for attention-getting stories. We are besieged on
all sides by the media's efforts to engage our conscious
faculties. The television is usually considered the worst of-
fender because so much coming over the air waves is junk or worse.
However, wherever one looks, the incessant effort to catch and
keep our eyes and ears, even for an instant, goes on apace.
Fortunately, we can extricate ourselves from these dilemmas
and gain some better insight into what is the "real truth". In
the process we have to remember that what is truth today, may
not be tomorrow, and what is truth in Fredericksburg, may be
fiction in some other community. Still, we can go to the library
to do our own research, or we can talk with those having
scholarly knowledge and judgement. Furthermore, we can attend
a workshop or symposium to listen to knowledgeable people discuss
the matter of immediate interest.
That, of course, is why we are here today--to hear about
the effects.of chlorine and thereby, to gain a better insight
into one of the most challenging environmental problems facing
those who are concerned about the Chesapeake Bay.
Perhaps this would be the appropriate time to tell you a
bit about the sponsors of this conference. You will be hearing
from us over the next couple of days.
First, the Chesapeake Research Consortium, with Dr. L. Eugene
Cronin as its director, is an organization created to coordinate
the research of the four primary educational and research or-
ganizations doing work on the problems of the Chesapeake Bay.
These organizations include the Johns Hopkins University, the
Smithsonian Institution, the University of Maryland, and the
\ Page 5
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. In its relatively short
life the Consortium has earned recognition as the calm but strong
voice of reason and logic in affairs of the Bay. One of its
many efforts was putting together the landmark Bi-State Con-
ference on the Chesapeake Bay which was held in April 1977 at
the Patuxent Naval Air Test Center. The discussions occurring
during that conference and the resulting Proceedings are re-
cognized as an important starting point for developing many of
the plans and programs which we tend to take for granted today.
Most importantly, during the conference, officials from Mary-
land and Virginia pledged their best efforts to provide an on-
going cooperative framework for conducting official activities
concerning the Chesapeake Bay.
The next sponsor, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), is
the organization which most citizens consider the primary entity
devoted to preserving the Chesapeake Bay and its many values.
Headed by President Godfrey Rockefeller and David McGrath,
Executive Director, the Foundation is the foremost private
educational entity on the Bay. Through its broad educational
program that ranges from canoe trips in Bay marshes to formal
lectures on Bay ecology to several thousands of "SAVE THE BAY"
bumper stickers , CBF is the organization most people look to
for guidance in Bay matters.
The Citizen's Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., (CPCB),
with Cranston Morgan as its Board Chairman and myself as Presi-
dent, is the last sponsor. An organization of organizations,
the CPCB promotes public discussion about Bay affairs by spon-
soring neutral forums. In addition, it supervises several pro-
jects designed to foster greater public interest and involvement
in Bay issues. The largest of these projects is the management
of the public participation aspects of the EPA Chesapeake Bay
Research Program. Another, funded by a grant from the National
Science Foundation, involves a planning study which should lead
to the establishment of a Chesapeake Bay Information Center.
The organization is also completing a Bay User Ethics project
with financial support from the Virginia and Maryland Councils
for the Humanities. Funded by the Virginia Environmental Endow-
ment CPCB also administers a mini-grants program to promote
greater public interest in the Chesapeake as a great national
resource. A loose but effective partnership, CPCB promotes in-
creased public knowledge and concern about maintaining the
vitality of the Bay.
Even if the Bay was not what it is--a great national re-
source—we should still be concerned about her. However, the
Chesapeake is still the "Queen of Estuaries", "rich in a variety
of natural, commercial and other resources, including environ-
mental natural beauty...of immediate and potential value to the
present and future generations of Americans."
Page 6
The Bay contributes significantly to the lives of millions.
The great metropolitan centers of the upper and lower Bay de-
pend directly on Bay-related commerce and industry for much of
their income. Of course, dozens of smaller cities and villages
are even more directly related to this great estuary which may
be the microcosm of all life's experience for some. For in-
stance, the entire society, cultural and economic, of the island
communities of Tangier and Smith, reflects their profound de-
pendence upon the Bay.
The neighboring society generally takes for granted its
dependence on the Chesapeake Bay for commerce and industry.
After all, the Bay is still producing lots of oysters and crabs,
although the prices have gone up; and fishing is still pretty
good, although the species have changed. Furthermore, there is
still a lot of room for boating even though things get a bit
hectic around Annapolis on a pleasant summer afternoon; and
while duck hunting has declined, goose hunting has never been
better.
i
So what do we have to be concerned about?
The same things that concerned some people ten and perhaps
twenty or more years ago are still concerns. Factors adversely
affecting estuaries then are still at work, but considerable
progress has been made. For instance, filling of important
wetlands is now under reasonable control in both Maryland and
Virginia, although the insidious nibbling away of small pieces
of wetland will one day be considered a major problem.
Pollution, another familiar problem, is not nearly as
serious in many parts of"the country as it was ten years ago.
Although as we learn more, we will continue to find out how
little we know. However, there is reason for optimism that we
can continue to establish effective controls over the deterior-
ation of our waters. In the Chesapeake; effective control is a
large problem since it is affected greatly by the actions, or
lack thereof, of upstream neighbors who see little direct
reason to be concerned about the impacts they might have on the
Bay.
Furthermore, the Bay's current problems, great as they may
seem, are apt to the dwarfed by those at the end of the century.
The Corps of Engineers predicts that the Bay area population will
then be 12.5 million, an increase of 3.5 million from today.
With more people will come more uses, and more users, more con-
flicts , more dredging, more filling, and more wastes to be ac-
commodated.
The establishment of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the
a n
ttentio being given to the Bay and its problems by both the
citizenry and officialdom gives reason for restrained' optimism.