Distillery Pollution

Abstract

THE disposal of the effluents from distilleries and other works is a matter of first interest not only to the proprietors of the works, but also to the riparian owners on the banks of streams on which such works are usually situated, and a few remarks on the possibility of avoiding the Law Courts in matters of pollution of rivers may be of interest, especially to the owners of distilleries. In the Spey district of Scotland, for instance, the great increase of distilleries, both in number and in malting capacity, has in recent years so increased the effluent that although any one distillery may not in itself seriously pollute so large a body of water as the Spey, yet their joint effluent is so great, it is alleged, that the pollution is serious, prejudicially affecting fish life, spawning and the taking of the fly by salmon, and rendering the river otherwise unfit for primary uses. Be these allegations true or false, the fact remains that at the present moment interdict hangs over one distillery—the Macallan Glenlivet Distillery—and if no method is found of avoiding the discharge and consequent fungoid growth, &c., there is no saying what may be the issue and ultimate result to what is now a very large industry. It is not proposed to discuss the two sides of the question—the maintenance of the industry or the preservation of the purity of such a fine river as the Spey, or other rivers similarly situated—but rather to consider what can be done to meet both sides. Now it may be held as true that there is no operation to which the burnt ale or spent lees of a distillery can practically be subjected to, that will render the effluent innocuous. The effluent may be evaporated or spread over irrigation fields, or treated with chemicals or charcoal, and yet the processes are in one way or another defective; and there appears but one solution, not to pass the effluent into the rivers, but take it away in pipes or barges to the sea. In many cases this is quite impracticable, even by the joint action of a number of distilleries; but in some cases the effluent has successfully been taken miles in pipes and discharged into the sea. As is known from large experience in outfall pipes for sewage and paper works effluents, it requires a carefully designed arrangement, the cost of which can only be determined after a minute survey; and usually the cost turns out to be too great, and then there appears to be one solution by passing the effluent out in the form of a fine spray from the top of a high chimney or iron lattice tower. The natural question at once asked is: But you pollute the air instead of the water, and what the better are you for doing so? In the first place, what is discharged is not a gas which, if of a noxious quality, might hurt by being inhaled. It is not like soot, which might leave a black mark on your face or clothes. The spray, if it fell on your skin or clothes, could do you no harm, or at least infinitesimal harm. It is not a poisonous liquid, as cattle can drink it. If it fell on trees or grass, except in large quantities, which would not be the case, it would not burn them. Pollution of air is not objected to unless it be in great excess; indeed, we all pollute the air to our neighbours' and our own disadvantage. We send out gases and smoke from our chimneys, which find their way to our neighbours' carpets and curtains and clothes, and we put out the foulest of gas—viz. sewer gas—daily and hourly from the ventilating pipes of our modern house drains, and many of our factories, electric light stations, &c, pass out gases which individually one would say would be sufficient to affect a whole city. There are many physical reasons which make the great difference on the harmless nature of air pollution from water pollution, and that is the cubic capacity of the polluted substance.