Establishment of Effluent Standards for Industrial Wastewaters in Korea: Current Issues and Suggestions for Future Plan

LINK DOWNLOAD MIỄN PHÍ TÀI LIỆU "Establishment of Effluent Standards for Industrial Wastewaters in Korea: Current Issues and Suggestions for Future Plan": http://123doc.vn/document/559466-establishment-of-effluent-standards-for-industrial-wastewaters-in-korea-current-issues-and-suggestions-for-future-plan.htm

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010


Address correspondence to Jin-Young Jung, Department of Environmental Engineering, Yeungnam
University, Email: jinjung@ynu.ac.kr
Received December 30, 2009, Accepted March 30, 2010.
- 151 -

Establishment of Effluent Standards for Industrial
Wastewaters in Korea: Current Issues and Suggestions
for Future Plan


Ijung KIM*, Sung-Hoon HONG**, Jin-Young JUNG***

* Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at
Austin,1 University Station, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
** Environment Division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, 39-1 Hawolgok-Dong,
Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-791, Republic of Korea
*** Department of Environmental Engineering, Yeungnam University, 214-1 Dae-Dong,
Gyeongsan-Si, Gyeongsangbuk-Do 712-749, Republic of Korea


ABSTRACT
Industrial wastewaters have been strongly controlled by effluent standard. Either water
quality-based or technology-based effluent standard could be adopted on the basis of the
scientific rationale. Since it is important to set the regulation acceptable to both of
environmentalist and developmentalist, reasonable background in areal classification and
industrial categorization is required as well as scientific background. This study focused on
Korean effluent standards from the past to the future covering how to set the regulation based on
the approaches employed in well-developed countries. Except the area where strong protection is
required, the regulation should be applied according to the type of discharge, that is, direct or
indirect discharge. Industrial categorization should be carried out with the collection of
wastewater data to reflect the characteristics of wastewater in the regulation. As a way of
improving the allowable level of pollutant discharged, it was proposed that conventional
pollutants to follow technology-based standard, whereas toxic pollutants would be appropriate to
water quality-based standard. The lognormal distribution based on the effluent concentration
data was considered to be reasonable for the regulation of conventional pollutants. The water
quality standard implying risk assessment with 10 times dilution ratio was used to derive toxic
pollutant standards.

Keywords: effluent standard, technology-based, water quality-based.


INTRODUCTION
Though industrial development has led to economically affluent society, environmental
problems such as climate change and shortage of water supply, have been returned.
Since industrial wastewater is one of the representative point sources, its portion in
overall water pollution is significant in terms of the quality as well as the quantity. The
most common way to manage industrial wastewater is to apply environmental
regulations such as effluent standards. Although most developing countries are applying
effluent standards along with water quality standards to monitor the quality of the
watershed, many of those are not from their own effluent guideline, but just from other
countries’ standards (Ragas et al., 2005).

As a legal enforcement, effluent standards have been designed to regulate the
end-of-pipe wastewater dischargers. However, simply cutting down the allowable
concentration of the pollutants in wastewater is considered to be costly and temporarily
expedient (Abou-Elela et al., 2007), even if it might guarantee a better water quality.
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 152 -

Therefore, the regulations are required to be reviewed regularly to achieve a consented
control and to show continuously changing situations. In the case of U.S., the
scheduling and implementing of annual review for the effluent standard are imposed by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As stringent regulations could be applied
by the technological advancement in wastewater technology (Jaffe et al., 2002), the
revision of the effluent standards is facing new aspects in terms of treatability with
reasonable basis. Especially, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has been encouraged to use the best available techniques to prevent water
pollution (OECD, 1999).

The regulation covers a complexity of various elements including discharging area, type
of discharge, and kind of industry. Therefore, the need for a simplified effluent guideline
has been suggested (De La O et al., 1994). By selecting critical variables to be
considered in setting effluent standards, effluent guidelines could be organized in a less
complicated form. This approach would be beneficial to other developing countries as
well.

In Korea, although the effluent standard went through several revisions, reasonable
basis of the regulation has not been established yet. As an effort of setting the regulation
based on treatability, it is required to collect wastewater data as much as possible. In this
study, the approach in setting the effluent standards with a limited data set obtained so
far according to the kind of pollutants and industries was investigated. This paper
focused on the current state of effluent standards in Korea and the considerations to be
used in revising effluent standards and the framework referring to the cases of
developed countries. The purpose of this study is to set up the acceptable level of
effluent standards with scientific basis and to suggest a direction of the effluent
guidelines which can make industrial point sources scattered all over the country gather
into public wastewater treatment plants, resulting in a better control of individual
wastewater dischargers.


METHODS
Bases of effluent standard
In general, water quality standard is set prior to effluent standard because the cleaner the
effluent, the cleaner would be the water systems. Water quality standard starts from
water quality criteria based on risk assessment. The United States EPA proposed the
process of setting water quality criteria concerning both human health (US EPA, 2000)
and aquatic life (US EPA, 1996). For human health, risk assessment is applied
differently according to the carcinogenicity of the pollutant. Reference dose is used as
an important parameter in the derivation of safe concentration in case of carcinogens,
whereas another concern on non-carcinogens is to evaluate the reference source
contribution. For aquatic life, the determination criteria are highly dependent on acute
and chronic toxicity data provided by an officially approved database system such as
Ecotox (US EPA, 2008). To get more reliable criteria, it is crucial to collect sufficient
data from various taxonomical groups such as fish, daphnia and algae. From the criteria
derived by risk assessment, water quality standards can be adjusted by the regional
classification, that is, the designated use of a specific watershed.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 153 -

After confirming the water quality standard, effluent standard can be set according to
dilution ratio, treatability, economic feasibility, and other factors. Two kinds of
approaches in setting effluent standard are water quality-based approach and
technology-based approach.

Water quality-based approach
The key components in water quality-based approach are water quality standards and
models. As mentioned above, the methodology to set the water quality standards
contains the principle of risk assessment. Scientific data of bio-assay rather than
industry data should be gathered. In risk assessment, acute and chronic toxicity can be
represented as LC
50
(median lethal concentration) / EC
50
(median effective
concentration) and NOEC (no observed effect concentration), respectively. The toxic
effect onto human and aquatic life is evaluated separately. Considering toxic effect and
data collection, this approach is better applied to toxic pollutants. Safety factor in the
range of 10-1,000 is used in EU (EU, 2000) and Australia (ANZECC, 2000). The
calculation of the water quality criteria is shown in equation (1).

50 50
LC , EC or NOEC
Water Quality Criteria =
Uncertainty factor (10~1,000)


Water quality standards are determined through the water quality criteria. In Korea,
water quality standards were set up by considering the drinking water standards and the
economical and technical availability. Because water quality standards express the
quantified level of water quality, appropriate selection of models can guarantee the
water quality-based effluent standard. According to the characteristics of watershed,
various models can be applied. The simplest model comes from the following equation
(Ross, 1994).

12 31 1
2
2
(F +F ) C -F C
C =
F


where, F
1
: upstream flow
F
2
: discharge flow
C
1
: concentration in upstream
C
2
: concentration in discharge (effluent standard)
C
3
: concentration in downstream (water quality standard)

Technology-based approach
Acknowledging the limitation of treatment technology, technology-based approach has
appeared in view of treatability. In developed countries such as US and EU countries,
technology-based approach was adopted as a feasible way in social, economical and
technical compromise (US EPA, 1996; EU, 1996). Technology-based approach is often
referred to as the best available technology (BAT) approach. This approach is being
used in the EU and US. What is important in BAT approach is the thorough analysis of
the industry including treatment facilities, as well as effluent characteristics. Though it
is desirable in long-term, it takes too much time and effort making it difficult to apply in
developing countries. Using the easily assessable data which is the concentration in the
effluent, the logical argument could be established by a statistical support. Statistical
approach (Wheatland, 1972) was found to be required in setting the effluent standards
(1)
(2)
-
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 154 -

of a sewage treatment plant. Regression of the effluent data could be a key concept in
setting the effluent standards (Kahn and Rubin, 1989).

To derive the effluent standards by the technology-based approach, the effluent quality
from wastewater treatment should be monitored and recorded to be converted into a
concentration-frequency graph which can be assumed as a probability distribution such
as normal, lognormal or delta-lognormal distribution. Through statistical analysis,
effluent standard by technology-based approach is determined. In the US, lognormal
distribution or delta distribution which shows reasonably good fit to various effluent
data, has been used in the calculation of the effluent standard. The approach by effluent
data and statistical fitting can be used to suggest practical level of effluent standard
rather than the required one. The 95
th
percentile approach (Crain, 1995) has been used to
derive monthly average effluent standard in the US.

Combining both approaches can be a good solution to set the effluent standard in develo
ping countries (Ragas et al., 2005). Wherever Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) is
established, the water quality-based approach employed by US EPA (US EPA ,
1991) can be applied. Although water quality-based approach is sufficient only to keep
the water quality standard, it can impose overburden with individual treatment facility,
even to economically infeasible level. Therefore, technology-based approach can be a c
omplement to water-quality based approach. The important concept of technology-base
d approach is to set the level of effluent standard so that the treatment facility can meet t
he regulation.

Each effluent standard derived from both approaches is compared to determine which
value or range is reasonable to satisfy water quality standard and technologically
feasible level. Unless the safety of water quality is guaranteed, the regulation could rely
on water-quality based approach with the benefit/cost analysis which helps the
decision-maker to predict the result of regulation (Arrow et al., 2008). Through social
compliance to the degree which the stakeholders can agree with, effluent standard can
be finally confirmed.

So far, effluent standard in Korea is considered to be subordinate to water quality
standard. However, it is required to evaluate effluent standard as an independent
regulation and to revise it based on the methods employed in well-developed countries.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overview of effluent standard in Korea
Once a pollutant was included in the effluent standard, the allowable concentration
stated remained constant for more than 20 years with the exception of a few cases. The
main reason is that there was no basis of effluent standard, resulting in just following
other countries’ cases. In getting the numeric value to control the amount of pollutant
discharged, it is difficult to avoid being controversial due to various viewpoints of
stakeholders. In brief, it can be described as a debate between protection and
development; an effort to get clean and safe water and a desire to reach an economically
developed society. Above all, sustainability can be the conceptual solution to manage it
(Costanza et al., 1991), covering both ecological and economic aspects. Also, science as
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 155 -

an advanced support of policy-making is required to involve the public sector (Cortner,
2000).

Pollutants regulated in effluent standard
The concept of effluent standard in Korea emerged in the middle of 1960s with the enfo
rced ordinance of pollution prevention. Although it has been revised continuously, the re
sults were just an increase in the number of pollutants and a decrease in the level of allo
wable concentration, mostly depending on chemical analyses (Choi et al., 2004). The nu
mber of pollutants regulated under effluent standards was initially 7, and now it increase
d to 32 (Table 1). It seems that the range of control was greatly increased, yet it is still s
mall when compared to the number of pollutants regulated in well-developed countries l
ike Japan which regulates 42 pollutants and the U.S. which has 65 toxic pollutants to be
controlled. Because new pollutants in Korea are assessed and selectively included into e
ffluent standards by framework for classifying toxic substances in water environment (B
ae et al., 2007), it is expected that the number of pollutants would be increased up to the
level of well-developed countries. The pollutants recently included can be classified int
o a group defined as toxic pollutants in U.S (US NARA, 2007).
Especially, ecotoxicity which is the same parameter as the whole effluent toxicity (WET
) in Korea has been adopted to unlimitedly manage increasing pollutants with the advan
cement of analytical tools. The WET regulation checks whether more than 50% of organ
isms (fish, daphnia, algae and others) under toxicity test survive or not when they are dir
ectly introduced to the discharged wastewater. Wastewater is directly applied in protecte
d area, while twice diluted wastewater is used in normal areas, as a tool to investigate th
e total toxicity on human health and aquatic lives. Now it can be easily found that WET,
as a complementary tool to chemical approach of the regulation, already took a part of
effluent regulation with legal enforcement in other countries (Environment Agency,
2006; Germany, 2004).
Nowadays, 32 pollutants (Table 1) officially regulated in Korea can be classified in the f
ollowing groups.

Conventional pollutants
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended
solids (SS), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) are classified in the
conventional pollutants. They are the most representative and common groups in water
pollutants. Hence, they have been widely used in water quality index, and it is easy to
accumulate the effluent data of this group.

Toxic pollutants
Toxic pollutants are the chemicals which can cause fatal threat to human and
eco-system even at low concentration. They are categorized as priority substances (EU,
2000) or toxic pollutants (Khan and Rubin, 1989). In Korea, 22 pollutants among 32 are
included in the toxic group. This group is relatively difficult to analyze in general, and is
expected to increase in number due to the advancement of analysis. It is required to pay
attention to select pollutant regulated according to industry.

Other pollutants
The rest of the pollutants are grouped as other pollutants. The pollutants under this
group contain pH, temperature, color, total coliform and ecotoxicity. They are not
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 156 -

expressed in mg/L, unlike the other specific chemical compounds. As the universal
characteristics appeared in almost every industrial effluent to some extent, other
pollutants could also be applied to all of the industries except color. Color has been
reported to appear uniquely high in specific industries such as dyeing and textile
industry. In this study, this group was not considered to be changed in setting the
effluent standards.

Table 1 - Pollutants regulated under the effluent standards in Korea (Ministry of
Government Legislation in Korea, 2009).


Areal classification in effluent standard
According to the beneficial use of the watershed where wastewater is discharged, the
level of allowable amount of pollutant can be set. For example, the area where strong
protection is required such as drinking water, has normally strict effluent standards
specialized for its limited area. Moreover, aside from national standards, effluent
standards can be applied differently by the local government, making the application
more flexible to specific conditions. While the protected area was established so far,
there has been a little concern on local standard. Therefore, once national standard is set,
it is applied all over the nation. Now, four areas are defined in effluent standard;
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 157 -

protected area, normal I, normal II and special area, which is strongly controlled by the
central government.

Though the regulation of indirect dischargers is the same as that of direct dischargers in
Korea, there are other countries’ cases (US EPA, 2004; Germany, 2004; EU, 2001)
showing that separate effluent standard which was less strict for indirect dischargers
could be set in the tolerable level not causing problems to the operation of Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Although there has been no problem concerning
indirect dischargers in national-level regulation, separate effluent standard has been
applied since 1991. The distribution of publicly owned industrial wastewater treatment
and sewage treatment systems where separate effluent standards are set is shown in Fig.
1. More than 95% of industrial wastewater treatments have their own effluent standard
while sewage treatment systems are sensitive to receive industrial effluents so it is not a
simple process to confirm its safe operation. Therefore, it is also required to induce
individual wastewater dischargers to industrial wastewater treatment facilities rather
than to the sewage treatment systems.

Table 2 - Areas in Korea and their water quality standards.
Effluent standard (mg/L)
Area Goal of Water quality
BOD COD SS
Protected area
Ia
(BOD ≤ 1 mg/L)
30-40 40-50 30-40
Normal I area
Ib, II
(1 mg/L < BOD ≤ 3 mg/L)
60-80 70-90 60-80
Normal II area
III, IV, V
(3 mg/L < BOD ≤ 10 mg/L)
80-120 90-130 80-120
Special area* Secondary effluent standard 30 40 30
*Area around watershed where POTWs discharge has the specific standard (BOD 10 mg/L, COD 40
mg/L, SS 10 mg/L) that has been effective after 2008.


(a)
(b)

Fig. 1 - POTWs which have separate effluent standard in Korea (a) Industrial
wastewater treatments (b) Sewage treatment systems (Black : with separate
effluent standard, Gray : without separate effluent standard).

Categorical effluent standard
Effluent standards have been transformed from uniform standard to categorical one
according to the wastewater characteristics (Tilche and Orhon, 2002). Industrial
categorization was once adopted in the middle of 1970s. After that, various effluent
(a)
(b)
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 158 -

standards according to the industries were applied but it was soon returned to uniform
regulation in 1983. Although 82 industries based on standard industry categorization
were officially included in Korean legislation related to effluent standards, categorical
application of effluent standards has not been used for nearly 20 years.

As an intermediate step that seems to be a stepwise improvement (Von Sperling and
Chernicharo, 2002), it is desirable to set slightly stricter effluent standards than before,
conforming to the existing status. The site visit and data acquisition were required to be
conducted together continuously to increase the number of effluent data. Since there is
limitation to get data in the effort of government solely, monitoring and reporting
requirements are necessary to be imposed on the industries. In part, the role of local
governments might be increased in gathering and arranging data from industries located
under their authorities.

Since industrial categorization was not reflected in the effluent standard, industrial
categorization in effluent standard is now commonly determined to be feasible in the
regulation (EU, 1996; US NARA, 2007). If industrial categorization is included in the
effluent standard, the most important factor is whether the categorization is based on the
similarity of wastewater characteristics. If the categorization simply follows the system
of industrial classification, the characteristics can be varied seriously even in same
category. Therefore, extensive investigation throughout the all the industries should be
carried out.

Improvement of effluent standard in Korea
As a way to get the reasonable basis for conventional pollutants which the effluent data
have been accumulated for years, effluent standards can be derived from statistical
analysis. Briefly, the process of setting effluent standard by statistical analysis consisted
of four steps (Fig. 2); gathering long-term effluent data, transitioning to relationship
between concentration and frequency, applying to probability distribution and deriving
effluent standards by mean and standard deviation. Specifically, variability factor (US
EPA, 2002) covering the fluctuation of effluent data in the well-operated plant, is
multiplied with the mean of effluent data to get the values of 99 percentile or 95
percentile in the probability distribution. The 99 percentile and 95 percentile are
maximum daily limitation and average monthly limitation, respectively. Since the
concept of daily maximum is not included in Korea, it is recommended to adopt the 95
percentile as effluent standard, covering as many effluent data as possible.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 159 -

Col 2 vs Col 1
Concentration (mg/L)
Frequency
0
20
40
60
80
100
1
2
3
4
56
78
910
0
Time (days)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Concentration (mg/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
1. Effluent data analysis 2. Concentration-frequency graph
3. Probability distributional assumption
4. Derivation of effluent standard
Effluent standard (95 percentile) = μ + 1.645σ
(In case of normal distribution,
μ: average, σ : standard deviation)

Fig. 2 - Setting effluent standard by statistical analysis.


Fig. 3 - Frequency of detection according to COD and total nitrogen concentration in
metal assembly industry (Ministry of Environment in Korea, 2007).

As shown in Fig. 3, the frequency distribution seems to be a kind of lognormal
distribution expressed in x=exp(y). After fitting to the x=exp(y), the 95
th
percentile of x
(x
.95
) can be calculated by the following equations.

k
k
ln x
=
n



2
k
2
k
(ln x )
=
n





where,

= mean of sample


= standard deviation of sample
n = number of sample
.95
x = exp( 1.645 )
 


(4)
(5)
(6)
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 160 -

Based on the method mentioned above, the technology-based standard was found to be
more stringent than the existing one, implying that the existing standard was not
successful to reflect the actual discharge condition. In case of metal assembly industry,
TN and TP standards were proposed as the values decreased 17% and 63%,
respectively.

Table 3 - Comparison of conventional pollutant standards in metal assembly industry.
Pollutant
BOD
(mg/L)
COD
(mg/L)
SS
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
Existing standard 60-120 70-30 60-120 60 8
Technology-based
standard (proposed)
40 50 20 50 3

In numeric values of national effluent standard, toxic pollutants which have water
quality standards mostly get effluent standards 10 times higher than water quality
standards (Ministry of Environment in Korea, 2001). This is one way of setting the
effluent standards from water quality standards, that is, a kind of water quality-based
approach. Unfortunately, due to the lack of database of effluent quality from individual
wastewater dischargers, technology-based approach is hard to be applied for toxic
pollutants in Korea. What is required to revise the effluent standard framework is to get
independent logics in setting the effluent standards, continuing to accumulate as many
reliable effluent data from industries as possible. As treatability is based on the data
accumulated in a long-term, how to set the infrastructure to get the data is a crucial
factor in setting the effluent standards. The following assumptions can be used in
calculating water quality-based effluent standards in water quality-based approach.

- There is no concentration in upstream.
- Dilution ratio is the ratio of water quality standard and effluent standard.

Wastewater flow + Receiving water flow
Dilution ratio =
Wastewater flow


When dilution ratios were calculated among the main streams which receive more than
10,000 m
3
/year of wastewater, it was found that the dilution ratio, even at a dry season
(minimum dilution ratio), was more than 10 (Table 4). Therefore, applying 10 times to
water quality standard can be reasonable, assuming simple dilution of wastewater
discharged in watershed. Effluent standards of several toxic pollutants as shown in
Table 5 were set with dilution ratio of 10.

(7)
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 161 -

Table 4 - Dilution ratio of watershed in Korea.
Receiving water flow (10
3
m
3
/day) Dilution ratio
River
Max. Min. Avg.
Wastewater flow
(10
3
m
3
/day)
Max. Min. Avg.
A 84,674 15,575 25,133 255 333 62 100
B 83,644 7,344 24,262 527 159 15 47
C 33,696 6,364 13,586 156 217 42 88
D 32,168 1,223 7,115 22 1,463 57 324
E 15,068 950 5,011 74 205 14 69
F 14,861 518 3,826 6 2,478 87 638
G 4,389 1,382 2,517 27 164 52 94
H 6,877 328 2,088 26 266 14 81
I 3,110 173 1,133 9 347 20 127
J 4,277 562 2,195 1 4,278 563 2,196
K 7,279 682 2,603 37 198 19 71


Table 5 - Effluent standards with dilution ratio 10 in Korea.


As a result, it was found that the effluent standard which has been unreasonably applied
could be adjusted to the reasonable level reflecting the actual discharge condition.
Standard from existing effluent data implies technically available level. To set more
credibility to the technology-based standard, accumulated data collection is required.
Because there are usually few observations in a single plant, effluent data from the
plants of the same industry were put together. Even though the subcategorization was
also required according to the presence of toxic pollutants, obtaining a credible
statistical result was the priority in this study. As shown in Table 6, the proposed
effluent limitation becomes more stringent than the existing one based on both
technology- and water quality-based approaches.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 162 -

Table 6 - Effluent standards of conventional and toxic pollutants in metal assembly
industry (unit : mg/L).
Methodology Pollutant Existing Proposed
BOD 60-120 50
COD 70-130 60
SS 60-120 30
TN 60 40
Technology-based
approach
TP 8 4
phenols 3 0.05
cyanide compounds 1 0.1
chromium 2 0.5
dissolved iron 10 3
zinc 5 5
copper 3 3
cadmium and its compounds 0.1 0.05
total mercury 0.005 0.005
organic phosphorus
compounds
1 0.2
arsenic and its compounds* 0.5 -
lead and its compounds 1 0.5
chromium(VI) 0.5 0.5
dissolved manganese 10 3
fluorine 15 15
poly chlorinated biphenyl 0.003 0.003
trichloroethylen 0.3 0.3
tetrachloroethylen* 0.1 -
alkyl benzene sulfonate 5 5
benzene 0.1 0.1
Water quality-based
approach
dichloromethane 0.2 0.2
* Pollutants not to be regulated



Fig. 4 - Proposed effluent standard guideline in Korea.


Visiting survey

Questionnaire

Industrial categorization
Plant survey
Pollutants selection
Conventional pollutant

Toxic pollutant
Technology-based
approach

Water quality based
approach

Professional judgment,
Public hearing

Effluent standard
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 163 -

The proposed effluent standard guideline reflecting the main structure with
technology-based and water quality-based approach is shown in Fig. 4. At first,
industries should be classified into several categories to set the categorical standard.
After investigating each industry, effluent standards could be established except for the
pollutants that are considered not to be discharged. Technology-based approach is
applied to conventional pollutants whose data can be obtained sufficiently, whereas
water quality-based approach is applied to toxic pollutants assuming simple dilution in
watershed. Then, the proposed standard should undergo professional judgment and
public hearing toward social compromise to make the effluent standard a consented
degree of regulation.


CONCLUSIONS
It is suggested that the investigation of industrial categorization should be applied to
effluent standard, concentrating on the wastewater characteristics. Areal classification
could be modified into direct and indirect discharge area, without including the drinking
water protection area. For indirect discharge area, it is desirable to set separate effluent
standards to the extent of not interfering POTWs. According to the kind of industry, the
pollutants under regulation could be selected differently. To control the number of
pollutants, biological assessment such as WET could be a supplementary in the
regulation that has been highly reliable on chemical analyses.

After gathering sufficient data to conduct statistical analysis, the effluent quality level
achievable in the industry could be applied on the basis of treatability. Therefore, every
industry under the regulation should be responsible for the regular monitoring of the
effluent and forwarding the data to the environmental authorities. Although only
conventional pollutants were assessed by technology-based effluent standard in this
study, it is recommended to apply this to toxic pollutants as well. Likewise, the
approach by water quality-based effluent standard can be applied to conventional
pollutants to make sure that the water quality standard is kept. In the future, both of
technology-based and water quality-based effluent standards should be taken into
account to satisfy water quality standard and industrial dischargers.

Although effluent standards could be enforced by the government, the consensus among
stakeholders is considered to be more important in establishing regulations in a
democratic society. Therefore, public hearing is required in the process of regulation
development as well.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors appreciate the financial support of the Ministry of Environment of Korea
(Project Name : Study on improvement of industrial wastewater management).


REFERENCES
Abou-Elela S. I., Haleem H. A., Abou-Taleb E. and Ibrahim H. S. (2007). Application of
cleaner production technology in chemical industry: a near zero emission, Journal
of Clean Production, 15, 1852-1858.
Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 8, No.3, 2010

- 164 -

ANZECC (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water
quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
Available online at
http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for
_fresh_and_marine_water_quality
Arrow K. J., Cropper M. L., Eads G. C., Hahn R. W., Lave L. B., Noll R. G., Portney P.
R., Russell M., Schmalensee R., Smith V. K. and Stavins R. N. (2008). Is there a
role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health and safety regulation? Science,
272, 221-222.
Bae H., Chung Y. C., Yang H., Kim J., Lee H. D. and Jung J. Y. (2007). The various
factors which should be considered in classifying toxic substances in water and
deriving their effluent limits: focusing on the reduction of risk, Journal of Korean
Society on Water Quality, 23(5), 766-775.
Choi K., Meier P. G. and Zong M. (2004). Relationship of chemical-based effluent
regulations of Korea to aquatic toxicities to microbes, macroinvertevrates, and fish,
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 72, 1067-1074.
Cortner H. J. (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy, Environmental
Science and Policy, 3, 21-30.
Costanza R. (ed.) (1991). Ecological economics: The science and managment of
sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York, 525pp.
Crain B. R. (1995). Establishment of permit limits for mill effluent, Environmental
Management, 19, 273-279.
De La O E. E., Limon G. and Escalante I. C. (1994). A simplified procedure for setting
effluent quality standards, Water Science and Technology, 30, 65-72.
Environment Agency (2006). Performance standard for laboratories undertaking direct
toxicity assessment of effluents, Environment Agency, Hampshire. Available online
at http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0206BLGH-e-e.pdf
EU (1996). EU Directive 1996/61/EC, Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L
257, 26-79.
EU (2000). EU Directive 2000/00/60, Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 327,
1-77.
EU (2001). Reference documents on best available techniques in the ferrous metals
processing industry, European IPPC Bureau, Seville. Available online at
http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference
Germany (2004). Promulation of the new version of the ordinance on requirements for
the discharge of waste water into waters (Waste Water Ordinance – AbwV), Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Berlin.
Available online at
http://www.bmu.de/english/water_management/downloads/doc/3381.php
Jaffe A. B., Newell R. G. and Stavins R. N. (2002). Environmental policy and
technological change, Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 41-69.
Kahn H. D. and Rubin M. B. (1989). Use of statistical methods in industrial water
pollution control regulation in the United States, Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 12, 129-148.
Ministry of Environment in Korea (2001). Study for strengthening items of water
polluting substances regulated by the effluent standard, Ministry of Environment,
Kyeonggi-do. Available online at http://www.me.go.kr