TABLE VII-3.-DISTRIBUTION OF THE COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL UNDERTAKEN BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY (EXCLUSIVE OF INCREASES IN THE COST OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMED DIRECTLY BY RESIDENTIAL USERS)

1980:

$2.72 to $5.44.

$5.44 to $8.16. $8.16 to $10.88.

$10.88 to $13.60. $13.60 to $20.40. $20.40 to $27.20.

$27.20 to $35.36.

$35.36 to $68.00.

Over $68.00..

Under $3.56.
$3.56 to $7.12.
$7.12 to $10.68.
$10.68 to $14.24.
$14.24 to $17.80.
$17.80 to $26.70.

$26.70 to $35.60.
$35.60 to $46.28.

$46.28 to $89.00. Over $89.00.

family unit family income

328

152

206

278

0.40

18

.12

.13

13

.12

.07

43223327

14

13

12

1.50

440

.25

Note: Based on cost estimates supplied by CEQ. Distribution by income brackets based on data derived from Brookings Institution's MERGE file, using a 10-percent sample.

These observations on the income distribution effects of individual means of financing pollution control are probably more significant than information on distribution of the total costs, since information on the separate impacts provides a basis for making policy judgments on the incidence of future environmental legislation.

CHAPTER IX-ENERGY IMPACTS OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

Water pollution abatement programs affecting energy are divided into two major parts-municipal wastewater treatment and the control of industrial wastewater pollution. This chapter assesses the energy requirements of these programs. The assumptions about energy requirements which are used throughout this chapter are designed to be conservative. In reality, EPA expects the energy penalty to be somewhat lower than this prediction.

Underlying the analysis are three conservative assumptions:

No new technologies are used which would be more energy-efficient than those currently in use.

Energy prices are low (pre-embargo level) so that the incentive to save money by reducing energy consumption is minimal.

There is no explicit Federal energy conservation program.

In reality, there is a clear national trend, especially in the industrial sector, toward water conservation and water resource recovery. Since water treatment costs and energy use are a strong function of the quality of water treated, any movement toward water conservation, effluent segregation, and/or water reuse will tend to reduce treatment costs and energy consumption. EPA therefore feels that the following estimates of energy demands are about at the upper limit of future energy consumption.

A. Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Sewage treatment is not an energy-intensive process. However, because there are large quantities of sewage to be treated, demands for fuel or electricity can' become significant on a national scale. The following assumptions were used to

generate estimates of national requirements for energy by wastewater treatment plants:

1. Secondary treatment will be required at all plants by 1980.

2. No more than 10% of all sludge is incinerated. The balance is land-filled or used for fertilizer (84% of all present plants used land disposal).

3. Activated sludge treatment is utilized to attain secondary standards.

4. Advanced waste treatment is required for about half the plants which are on heavily polluted streams.

In accordance with the assumptions, the energy consumed by all municipal wastewater treatment plants and the amount of energy expected to be required by FWPCA are summarized below. Table IX-1 also differentiates between energy required to meet the "best practicable treatment" guideline (secondary treatment) and advanced treatment which will be required in certain cases.

Not included in this tabulation are energy requirements for (1) construction of treatment plants, (2) manufacturing of new equipment, (3) nonprocess related energy demand such as space heating for the laboratory buildings, (4) collection system pumping requirements or (5) manufacturing of chemicals used in processes, especially for advanced treatment processes.

On the other hand, this analysis also did not include energy recovery by collection of methane during the treatment process. Methane collection has not been extensive in recent years because alternative sources of energy were very cheap. However, current energy prices will again make methane collection costeffective, and it will supply a significant percentage of energy needs for these facilities.

Energy demand for treatment increases very rapidly as effluent standards become more stringent. This estimate assumes that the solids are processed by digestion, and dewatered by vacuum filtration followed by landfill or agricultural disposal.

Energy demand can vary significantly from one plant to the next depending on specific plant types and designs. The assumptions made in this evaluation have been chosen to best represent typical plants which have demonstrated the capabilities of meeting the minimum effluent limitations.

The 1968 inventory of all municipal waste treatment facilities which was used as a basis for the estimates is summarized in Table IX-3. The energy requirements for primary and secondary facilities were multiplied by the number of plants and the total flow for plants in each size category.

The 1974 estimate was computed by adding all new projects to the 1968 inventory. The estimated energy demand in 1974 is 11.4 x 10° kwh/day or 20 MBD.

The estimate obtained for 1974 has been adjusted upwards by 11 percent to account for growth in sewered population between 1974 and 1977 and the impact of the requirement for secondary treatment has been added. From these assumptions, the estimated energy demand for achieving secondary treatment is 16.8×10° kwh/day (29 MBD). Because of delays in funding, much of the actual energy impact of total secondary treatment is assumed in this analysis to be delayed until 1978 instead of 1977. The difference between the predicted 1978 energy use (29 MBD) and 1980 energy use (44 MBD) will be almost entirely for advanced waste treatment.

EPA's best estimate is that by the mid-1980's between 75 and 80% of the energy requirement for municipal treatment will be for advanced treatment. The total then required for advanced plus secondary treatment will be about 105 MBD if water quality goals are met on all streams.

B. Effluent Guidelines for Powerplants

The FWPCA requires that all industrial discharges provide "best practicable treatment" by 1977 and "best available treatment” by 1983. These technologybased standards are being promulgated by EPA as effluent guidelines for all major industrial categories.

TABLE IX-4-1980 energy penalty of effluent guidelines

The FWPCA requires EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for steam-electric powerplants. These limitations will require many existing and proposed powerplants to provide off-stream cooling, with an attendant energy penalty due to reduced efficiency and increased operating requirements. A conservative estimate of the 1980 energy penalty is 50 MBD.

Assuming that the total steam-electric generating capacity, including nuclear power plants, in 1980 is about 530,000 MW, EPA estimates that about '70,000 MW will require closed-cycle cooling to meet the effluent guidelines after consideration of exemptions under Section 316(a) of the FWPCA. Assumptions include:

Thermal limitations will cover units larger than 500,000 kilowatts that were placed in operation after January 1, 1970,and all units larger than 25,000 kilowatts placed in operation after January 1, 1974. The affected units must comply by 1981, with extensions available up to 1983 for reliability considerations (except for those receiving a Section 316 exemption for 10 years).

A 3% annual fuel penalty was assumed.

50% of future units for which utilities are planning to install cooling towers are doing so for economic reasons and therefore are not included in the energy penalty. (Source: EPA estimates)

Energy penalties will be divided between coal and oil in accordance with their projected mix in the 1979-1983 period-80% coal, 20% oil.

C. Effluent Guidelines for All Other Industries

These regulations will be in effect by 1977, but the total energy impact will not be felt until 1983. Effluent guidelines for industries other than electric power have been tentatively estimated, based on projected requirements for heating fuel and electricity which have been developed by consultants during their examination of alternative control technologies to meet effluent guidelines. These estimates are prelimianry, but existing data indicate that the effluent guidelines will require an energy penalty of approximately 70 MBD in 1983. It is estimated that in 1980 the penalty will be 40 MBD. These estimates are based on flow rates and treatment requirements for each of the industries for which an effluent guideline has been promulgated. Future effluent guidelines for additional industrial categories could to increase this estimate significantly.

CHAPTER X-RESOURCE RECOVERY AND ENERGY SUPPLY

EPA's on-going program to improve the management of municipal solid waste programs is designed primarily to improve the environment, but it also has significant energy benefits which counterbalance, to some extent, the energy penalties of EPA's air and water programs.

Concern about energy supplies during the Arab embargo focused attention on how natural resources are used and on the potential to save energy by reducing waste. Continued growth in the consumption of raw materials and in the generation of solid wastes-with their attendant use and waste of energy—is neither inevitable nor necessary. Significant amounts of energy could be conserved by improving upon current mtaerials use and waste management practices. This chapter discussses three opportunities to conserve through better solid waste management:

1. Source reduction__

2. Energy recovery.

3. Recycling--

Reducing consumption of products or reusing products, resulting in the use of less energy and materials and in reduced waste generation.

Using solid waste as a fuel in place of coal, oil or gas; primarily to fire powerplants.

Using recycled materials that consume less energy than virgin materials in manufacturing processes.

When considering the combination of these three resource recovery measures, the total energy benefits from improved solid waste management cannot be determined by adding the potential savings from each category listed above because the three areas are interrelated: energy saved in one area may reduce the potential for savings in another. For example, banning non-refillable beverage containers (a source reduction measure) will reduce the amount of waste material available for recycling. Recycling combustible materials such as paper will reduce the amount of waste available for energy recovery.

On the other hand, some resource recovery measures will support or encourage other resource recovery measures. For example, energy recovery by combustion of organic material is very compatible with recycling or inorganic (noncombustible) materials, because energy recovery systems improve the economics of materials recycling. In an energy recovery system, the noncombustible recyclable materials are typically separated from the mixed waste even if the are not going to be recycled. The additional cost of removing the recyclable materials appears to be more than offset by the additional revenues from the sale of those materials. Table X-1 describes the maximum possible energy savings from resource recovery and EPA's estimate of savings if current trends continue.