Water Pollution: Differences Among The States In Issuing Permits Limiting The Discharge Of Pollutants

Front Cover
DIANE Publishing, Aug 30, 2004 - Science - 34 pages
0 Reviews
This report determines whether differences exist in whether and how the states' and EPA's permitting authorities control pollutants in the discharge permits they issue; identify the causes of any differences; and obtain information on EPA's oversight of the states' water quality standards and policies. Charts, tables and graphs.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 16 - of this report until 10 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator, EPA; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
Page 16 - make copies available to others on request. Please call me on (202) 512-6112 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed
Page 25 - and sludge. EPA's regulations require pretreatment programs at all municipal facilities with a design flow of more than 5 million gallons per day and at any smaller facilities that are receiving wastes that could interfere with plant operations or pass through into the receiving waters.
Page 5 - 6 to determine what types of controls, if any, the states' and EPA'S permitting authorities had imposed in these facilities' discharge permits for five toxic metal pollutants—cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. 7 We found that when the permitting authorities decided that some type of control was warranted, some consistently established numeric discharge limits in
Page 26 - For each of the five pollutants, the table lists (1) "Limits"—the number of permits that contained discharge limits for the selected pollutants, (2) "Monitor"—the number of permits that required facilities to monitor the level of pollutants in their discharge, and (3) "None"—the number of permits that contained no controls. Summary of Decisions on
Page 1 - Controls over the discharge of pollutants into the nation's surface waters differ from state to state. Our analysis of the controls over five toxic metals in 1,407 permits for municipal wastewater treatment facilities showed that in some states, the permitting authorities consistently established numeric limits on the discharges, while in other states, the
Page 5 - for toxic pollutants and were required to use these standards to derive discharge limits for all new permits and permits up for renewal 7 We selected these five pollutants for our review because, according to officials in EPA's Permits Division, they are commonly discharged by municipal wastewater treatment facilities and are likely
Page 12 - For example, Connecticut typically bases its numeric criteria for these pollutants on a risk level of 1 excess cancer case per 1 million people, while Arkansas bases its criteria on a risk level of 1 excess cancer case per 100,000 people. Thus, Connecticut's criteria are 10 times more stringent than Arkansas's.
Page 23 - For each of the five toxic metal pollutants included in our analysis, figure II. 1 shows the number of permits that contained discharge limits, the number that contained monitoring requirements, and the number that contained neither type of control. Figure 11.1: Summary of Control Decisions Nationwide for Five Toxic Metal Pollutants Additional Data on Pollutant Control Decisions
Page 20 - EPA's and the States' Responsibilities Figure II illustrates the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state agencies in developing water quality standards and implementing them in the permits issued to municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program (NPDES).

Bibliographic information