Advertisement

Technology Approach

  • Ralph A. Luken
Part of the Studies in Risk Uncertainty book series (SIRU, volume 1)

Abstract

The Clean Water Act establishes the national goal of achieving fishable and swimmable water quality and mandates technology-based standards as the primary regulatory approach for reducing discharges. These rules apply uniformly without regard to their effects on local ambient water quality. The Act imposes uniform technology-based standards that do not account for differences in compliance costs, existing stream quality, contributions of other effluent sources, or recreation potential. Thus, we would expect that the relation between benefits and costs would vary widely across sites.

Keywords

Total Suspended Solid Biochemical Oxygen Demand Paper Mill Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Document 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

References

  1. Bianchi, Dennis H. 1969. The Economic Value of Streams for Fishing Report No. 25. Water Research Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.Google Scholar
  2. Brandes, Debra A (ed.). 1984. 1985 Post’s Pulp and Paper Directory Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Freeman, A Myrick III. 1984. “On the Tactics of Benefit Estimation Under Executive Order 12291” in Environmental Policy Under Reagan’s Executive Order: The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis, V. Kerry Smith, ed. UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  4. Grayman, Walter M. 1985. “Routing and Graphical Display System (RGDS) User’s Manual.” Report to the Monitoring and Data Support Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1987. “Impacts of Pulp and Paper Industry on Water Quality.” Report to the Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  6. Harrington, Winston. 1981. “The Distribution of Recreational Benefits from Improved Water Quality: A Micro Simulation.” Discussion Paper D-80. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Hazilla, Michael T. and Raymond J. Kopp. 1986. “The Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis.” Discussion Paper QE86–02. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Luken, Ralph A., Daniel J. Basta, and Edward H. Pechan. 1976. “The National Residuals Discharge Inventory.” National Research Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Medynski, Ann L. (ed.). 1973. Post’s 1974 Pulp and Paper Directory Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Richard T. Carson. 1981. “An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements.” Draft report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1984. A Contingent Valuation Estimate of National Freshwater Benefits: Technical Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Naughton, Michael C., and William H. Desvousges. 1986. “Water Quality Benefits of Additional Pollution Control in the Pulp and Paper Industry.” Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  13. Naughton, Michael C., William H. Desvousges, and George R. Parsons. 1987. “Benefits Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies.” Unpublished Paper, San Diego State University, Economics Department.Google Scholar
  14. Parsons, George R. 1989. Personal communication. Department of Economics, University of Delaware. Newark, DE.Google Scholar
  15. Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett. 1986. “Cost of Clean Model of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Industry.” Draft report to the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges. 1986. Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1986. “Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures.” MA-200(84)-l. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974(a). “Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Unbleached Kraft and Semi-chemical Pulp Segment of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills Point Source Category”. EPA-440/l–74–025-a. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 1974(b). “Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Builders’ Paper and Roofing Felt Segment of the Builders’ Paper and Board Mills Point Source Category.” EPA-440/l–74–026a. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1976. “Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Bleached Kraft, Groundwood, Sulfite, Soda, Deink, and Non-Integrated Paper Mills Segment of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category.” EPA-440/l–76/047-b. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1982. “Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and the Builders’ Paper and Board Mills Point Source Categories.” EPA-440/1–82/025. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1984. “The Cost of Clean Air and Water Report to Congress 1984.” EPA-230/5–84–008. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1986(a). “Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen.” EPA-440/5–86–003. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1986(b). “Development Document for Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and the Builders’ Paper and Board Mills Point Source Categories.” EPA-440/1–86/025. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Interior. 1979. “Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan: The Assessment.” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1979. “Recreational Boating in the Continental U.S. — 1973 and 1976 Nationwide Boating Survey.” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. President’s Commission. 1987. American Outdoors Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Vaughan, William J., Charles M. Paulsen, Julia A. Hewett, and Clifford S. Russell. 1985. The Estimation of Recreation-Related Water Pollution Control Benefits: Swimming, Boating and Marine Recreational Fishing Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Wapora, Inc. 1974. “Survey of Pulp and Paper Mills for 1974 and 1976 Development Documents.” Memorandum to the Effluent Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rockville, MD.Google Scholar

References

  1. Brandes, Debra A. (ed.). 1984. 1985 Post’s Pulp and Paper Directory Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Medynski, Ann L. (ed.). 1973. Post’s 1974 Pulp and Paper Directory Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. “Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures, 1973.” MA-200(73)–l. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1986. “Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures, 1984.” MA-200(84)–l. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

References

  1. American Paper Institute (API). 1987. Paper Paperboard Wood Pulp Capacity. New York, NY.Google Scholar
  2. Brandes, Debra A. (ed.). 1984. 1985 Post’s Pulp and Paper Directory. Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Luken Ralph A., Daniel J. Basta, and Edward H. Pechan. 1976. The National Residuals Discharge Inventory, National Research Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Medynski, Ann L. (ed.). 1973. Post’s 1974 Pulp and Paper Directory. Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Wapora, Inc. 1974. “Survey of Pulp and Paper Mills for 1974 and 1976 Development Documents.” Memorandum to the Effluent Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1982. “Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’ Paper and Board Mill Point Source Categories.” EPA-440/1–82/025. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1986. “Study of the Pulp and Paper Industry in Region IV.” Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Reference

  1. Jordan, E.C. (Consulting Engineers). 1985. “MMBA: Water Cost Functions for the Pulp & Paper Industry.” Draft report to the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Portland, ME.Google Scholar

References

  1. Arthur D. Little. 1977. “Economic Impacts of Pulp and Paper Industry Compliance with Environmental Regulations.” EPA-230/3–76–014–1. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NACASI). 1985. “A Survey of Pulp and Paper Industry Environmental Expenditures — 1984.” Special Report No. 85–04. New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1986. “Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures.” MA-200 (84)-l. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. “Cost of Clean Air and Water Report to Congress 1984.” EPA-230/5–84–008. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1986. “Development Document for Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and the Builders’ Paper and Board Mills.” EPA-440/1–86–025. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

References

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1973. “Report to Congress: Costs of Construction of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works — 1973 Needs Survey.” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1984. “1984 Needs Survey — Report to Congress.” EPA-430/9–84–001. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1987. “Industrial Facilities Discharge File.” Computer Listing. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

References

  1. Bennett, James P., and Ronald E. Rathbun. 1972. “Reaeration in Open-Channel Flow.” Professional Paper 737. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Churchill, M.A., H.L. Elmore, and R.A. Buckingham. 1962. “The Prediction of Stream Reaeration Rates.” American Society of Chemical Engineers, SA4, 88:1–46.Google Scholar
  3. Fair, Gordon M., and John C. Geyer. 1958 Elements of Water Supply and Waste-Water Disposal. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  4. Issacs, W.P., and A.F. Gaudy. “Atmospheric Oxygenation in a Simulated Stream.” American Society of Chemical Engineers, SA2, 94:319–344.Google Scholar
  5. Langbein, Walter B., and Walthon H. Durum. “The Aeration Capacity of Streams.” Circular 542. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Leopold, Luna B., and Thomas Maddock, Jr. 1953. “The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some Physiographic Implications.” Professional Paper 252. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Negulescu, M., and V. Rojanski, 1969. “Recent Research to Determine Reaeration Coefficient.” Water Research, 3:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Connor, Donald J., and W.E. Dobbins. 1958. “Mechanisms of Reaeration in Natural Streams.” Transactions of the American Society of Chemical Engineers, 123:641–684.Google Scholar
  9. Owens, M., R.W. Edwards, and J.W. Gibbs. 1964. “Some Reaeration Studies in Streams.” International Journal of Air and Water Pollution, 8:469–486.Google Scholar
  10. W.E. Gates and Associates, Inc. 1982. “Reach File Enhancements: Pollutant Routing and Graphical Display Capabilities.” Report to the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar

Reference

  1. Grayman, Walter, M. 1987. “Investigation of the Validity of the Modeling Results Applied to Pulp and Paper Mills Based on Field Data.” Report to the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar

References

  1. Brookshire, Daniel S., Larry S. Eubanks, and Charles F. Sorg. 1986. “Existence Values and Normative Economics: Implications for Valuing Water Resources.” Water Resources Research, 22:1509–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gramlich, Frederick W. 1977. “The Demand for Clear Water: The Case of the Charles River.” National Tax Journal, 30:183–94.Google Scholar
  3. Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson, 1984 A Contingent Valuation Estimate of National Freshwater Benefits; Technical Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Naughton, Michael C., and William H. Desvousges. 1986. “Water Quality Benefits of Additional Pollution Control in the Pulp and Paper Industry.” Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  5. Naughton, Michael C., George R. Parsons, and William H. Desvousges. 1987. “Benefits Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies.” Unpublished paper. Economics Department, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges. 1986 Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges, and Ann Fisher. 1984. “A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits.” Working Paper No. 83-W32. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  8. Sutherland, Ronald J., and Richard G. Walsh. 1985. “Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality.” Land Economics, 62:282–91.Google Scholar
  9. Vaughan, William J., and Clifford S. Russell. 1982(a). “Valuing a Fishing Day: An Application of a Systematic Varying Parameter Model.” Land Economics, 58:45–63.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1982(b). “Freshwater Recreational Fishing: The National Benefits of Water Pollution Control.” Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Walsh, Richard G., Douglas A. Greenley, Robert A. Young, John R. McKean, and Anthony A. Prato. 1978. “Option Values, Preservation Values and Recreational Benefits of Improved Water Quality: A Case Study of the South Platte River Basin, Colorado.” EPA-600/5–78–001. Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph A. Luken
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, D.CUSA

Personalised recommendations