THESE FACILITIES OFTEN BREAK THE LAW MORE THAN ONCE AND FOR MORE THAN ONE POLLUTANT

Description

October 2007 An analysis of 2005 Clean Water Act compliance Troubled Waters An analysis of 2005 Clean Water Act compliance October 2007 Troubled Waters i Acknowledgments Written by Christy Leavitt, Clean Water Advocate with Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center. © 2007, Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center Cover photo: Victor Balabanov, under license from Shutterstock.com The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director with Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center, for her contributions to this report. Additional thanks to the numerous staff at state environmental protection agencies across the country for reviewing the data for accuracy. The recommendations are those of the Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders. To obtain additional copies of this report, visit our website or send a check for $25 made payable to Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center at the following address: y Center 103 E. Liberty Suite 202 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-662-9797 www.environmentmichigan.org Troubled Waters ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction: The State of America’s Waters ...

Informations

• Publié par: Fuwyang
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

 

 

 

  October 2007

An analysis of 2005 Clean Water Act compliance 



      

  Troubled Waters       An analysis of 2005 Clean Water Act compliance                        

  October 2007      

 

  Acknowledgments   Written by Christy Leavitt, Clear nA dWvaotecate with Environmcehnitg aMni Research & Policy Center.    © 2007, Environment MicRheigsaena rch & Policy Center    Cover photo: Victor Balabanov ,l iucnednesre from Shutterstock.com    The author would like to thank Alison Cassady , DRireescetaorrc hwith Environment Michigan Research &  Policy Center, for her contributions to thi s Ardedpitoirot.n al thanks hteo   nt umerous staff at state environmental protection agencies acrosst rtyh feo rc roeuvniewing dtahtea  for accuracy.     The recommendations are those of the En viMriocnhimgean & Policy Center and do nott Research necessarily reflect vtiheew s of our funders.    To obtain additional copies of this report,ru    e toyablvwbeisetsiti  c ackher  ondsedam ap erof 52$  Environment Michigan Research y&  CPeonlitcer at tfhoell owing address:    Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center 103 E. Liberty Suite 202 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-662-9797 www.environmentmichigan.org   

 

Troubled Waters ii

---------------------------------------------------------------- y---ologthod 7  Me --1------------- -------------------------------- ----------------Clean Water Act--------------------------------- emdncemosn--taoi --------14  R ---- -------------------------------- A reP tcnaeltaW  aorLet mier ftst eh1  2sa t 6fog PeriodReportin raunaJ neewteb  s Ded an5 00 21,y 00.5,12 re3 ecbm---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   2------ xidneppAFaci A. es ElitiidgncxeeriC T eh 00 21, 3ermbceDe dna 5002 ,1 yraJanu een betwnce tsO L ae stamrti ---------------------------------------------------------5------ 2------- dneppA  2------------------------------------------------  naetaWcA reP tedceg ineithClr naF calitiei sxEix B. All Michig ----------------    53----

Troubled Waters iii

          ntCof  o Ex     tsenelbaT   ----------------vi ecetura-yuSmm ioct Tn:nt   Iduro fo remAS ehetat ----------------------1------------------------------------------------------------------------- gkcanuorA :dreP t mi Ptoluol--te -----------------------------3  B -------------------------------- saWci’a----etsr---------------- lbdeW ta’a srTuo: AmericFindings ---- 4------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Assault on the dAimintsaritnos’ ----- T --  Bheh us ------------------------------------------------------------------syawre--------

  stea  lat  ;sttes  cingiox t  0

Executive Summary   O c   tober 18, 2007 marks th ednetni wal kram retoes rtod y of the Clean WtareA tc , aaldne53 na evinrasr and maintain the physical, chemical and ibnitoelogrgiitcya lo f the natiwoant’se rs.  In passing the  Clean Water Act, Congress set the goals of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waterways by 1985 and making all U.S. waterways fishable and swimmable by 1983. Although we made significant progress in improving watenrc eq utahleit yp assisage of the Clean Water Act, we are far  from realizing the Act’s original vision.   Using information provided Ub.yS .t hEen vironmentaol tPerction Agency (EPA) in response to a Freedom  of Information Act request, this report analyzes all m a ect ex thai facialjiotredsed their Clean Water Act permits between January 1, 2005 caenmd bDere 31, 2005; reveatlsy pthe eo f pollutants they are  discharging into our waterways; and details  ttoh ew heixcthe ntthese facilities are exceeding their permit  levels   .      More than two decades after the drafte1r9s 7o2f  tClheAct intended for the discharge of allan Water pollutants to be eliminated, facilities acrostsr yt hceo nctoinuune to violatluet ipoonl limits, at times  egregiously.     Findings include:   Thousands of facilities continue to exceed their Clean Water Act permits.   ”Nationally, more than 3600 major facilities (57%) exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits once between January 1, a2n0d0 5D ecember 31, 2005.      ”ng their Clean Wicilitsee cxeeidgetaf  ojomafar ih esehgep tnecrtcA reta.S U10e Th ht htiw setats . permit limits at least once anre,   Maticut, , Connec ,eroihOmaH ihspd,anew Ndehosl Iachusss, Rsetti New York, North Dakota, California, and West Virginia.   ”The 10 U.S. counties with the most faxcies ilitedinee rieht gaW naelCt Acr tes itrmpetal aetso cn eni  this period are Harris County, Texas; Los Angeles County, California; Worcester County, Massachu New Haven County, Connecticlcuta;s iCeau Parish, Louisiana; AllegChoeunyty, Pennsylvania; Hartford County, Connecticut; Will County, IllinoisC; oWunatyyn, eM ichigan; and Erie County, New York.       These facilities often exceed their permaint so nmcoe rae ntdh for more than one pollutant.    ”,404 deioper doidutsthe  2anedrtor mp reimstgnt ehritime per in the T e cxeeidicilitsemajor fahe 3600  exceedances of their Clean Water Act permitislimeans t T. tsihat many facilities exceeded their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant.                                                     a Facilities are designated as “major” based on an EPA scoring system that considers a combination of factors, includ pollutant potential, streamflow volume, public health impacts, and proximity to coastal waters. Troubled Waters 1