page 438 |
Previous | 1 of 4 | Next |
|
|
Loading content ...
STATUS OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAM TO CONTROL TOXIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES Swep T. Davis, Director Office of Analysis and Evaluation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Alexandra P. Wright, Manager Harry A. Coates, Environmental Analyst Water Resources Group Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. New York, New York 10022 THE PROBLEM Numerous federal, state and local governmental agencies have taken positive steps and earmarked mUlions of dollars to address the threat of health and environmental damage related to the discharge of pollutants. This has in part been due to the widespread response to a series of incidents across the country, such as: damage to the James River, Virginia, due to kepone discharges; damage to the Hudson River, New York, due to discharge of PCBs; banning consumption of fish contaminated by Mirex discharged to Lake Ontario, New York; and arsenic poisoning in Minnesota. Clearly, the nation's efforts to control pollution are taking a step beyond the more obvious traditional problems and refocusing on the more subtle industrial discharge of toxic substances. The challenge is great from a technological standpoint. In addition, implementation of legislative and other controls must be tempered with the realization that industry is stUl working under the burden of a difficult economic climate. Both environmental and economic factors are crucial to the ultimate goal of enhancing the quality of life. THE APPROACH Mechanisms to control toxic substances are found in a number of federal laws including: Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Consumer Product Safety Act Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act Atomic Energy Act Clean Air Act Occupational Safety and Health Act Toxic Substances Control Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Federal Water PoUution Control Act (PL 92-500) The Federal Water PoUution Control Act (PL 92-500) contains a number of authorities to control industrial point source discharges-notably, in Sections 301, 302, 304, 306, 307 and 311. Sections 301, 304 and 306 provide for development of effluent guidelines on an industry by industry basis. Section 307(a) is oriented specificaUy to toxic pollutants. Sections 307(b) and (c) provide for effluent limitation on discharges by industry into pub- Ucly owned treatment works. 438
Object Description
Purdue Identification Number | ETRIWC1977044 |
Title | Status of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program to control toxic industrial wastes |
Author |
Davis, Swep T. Wright, Alexandra P. Coates, Harry A. |
Date of Original | 1977 |
Conference Title | Proceedings of the 32nd Industrial Waste Conference |
Conference Front Matter (copy and paste) | http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/engext,26931 |
Extent of Original | p. 438-441 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital object copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Date Digitized | 2009-07-01 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Description
Title | page 438 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital object copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Transcript | STATUS OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAM TO CONTROL TOXIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES Swep T. Davis, Director Office of Analysis and Evaluation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Alexandra P. Wright, Manager Harry A. Coates, Environmental Analyst Water Resources Group Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. New York, New York 10022 THE PROBLEM Numerous federal, state and local governmental agencies have taken positive steps and earmarked mUlions of dollars to address the threat of health and environmental damage related to the discharge of pollutants. This has in part been due to the widespread response to a series of incidents across the country, such as: damage to the James River, Virginia, due to kepone discharges; damage to the Hudson River, New York, due to discharge of PCBs; banning consumption of fish contaminated by Mirex discharged to Lake Ontario, New York; and arsenic poisoning in Minnesota. Clearly, the nation's efforts to control pollution are taking a step beyond the more obvious traditional problems and refocusing on the more subtle industrial discharge of toxic substances. The challenge is great from a technological standpoint. In addition, implementation of legislative and other controls must be tempered with the realization that industry is stUl working under the burden of a difficult economic climate. Both environmental and economic factors are crucial to the ultimate goal of enhancing the quality of life. THE APPROACH Mechanisms to control toxic substances are found in a number of federal laws including: Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Consumer Product Safety Act Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act Atomic Energy Act Clean Air Act Occupational Safety and Health Act Toxic Substances Control Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Federal Water PoUution Control Act (PL 92-500) The Federal Water PoUution Control Act (PL 92-500) contains a number of authorities to control industrial point source discharges-notably, in Sections 301, 302, 304, 306, 307 and 311. Sections 301, 304 and 306 provide for development of effluent guidelines on an industry by industry basis. Section 307(a) is oriented specificaUy to toxic pollutants. Sections 307(b) and (c) provide for effluent limitation on discharges by industry into pub- Ucly owned treatment works. 438 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for page 438