Water polluters tangle with the law and lose

Simple item page
dc.acquisition-srcDownloaded from-Water Resources Abstractsen_US
dc.call-noen_US
dc.contract-noen_US
dc.contributor.otherBusiness Week, P 64-65, October 9, 1971 1 Photoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-15T17:15:19Z
dc.date.available2010-02-15T17:15:19Z
dc.date.issued1971 Oct 9en_US
dc.degreeen_US
dc.description64-65en_US
dc.description-otheren_US
dc.description.abstractTHE NIXON ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO USE THE LITTLE KNOWN REFUSE ACT OF 1899 TO CRACK DOWN ON WATER POLLUTION AT FIRST MET WITH LITTLE SUCCESS. HOWEVER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) RECENTLY ASKED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SUE 28 COMPANIES WHICH HAD NOT APPLIED FOR WASTE DISCHARGE PERMITS. THE FIRST CASE TO REACH TRIAL INVOLVED THE ARMCO STEEL PLANT ON THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL. ARMCO HAD DECIDED TO STOP ROUTINELY DUMPING A VARIETY OF HARMFUL CHEMICALS IN THE CHANNEL AND INSTEAD COMMENCED DRILLING TWO 7,000 FOOT WELLS TO STORE THE WASTES. WHILE THE DRILLING WAS APPROVED BY THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD, EPA OBJECTED AND OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION HALTING THAT ACTIVITY ON GROUNDS THAT THE WASTES COULD SEEP INTO WATER SUPPLIES. THE COURT BANNED USE OF THE WELLS UNLESS 18 NEARBY UNUSED OIL WELLS WERE PLUGGED TO PREVENT WASTE SEEPAGE. THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THIS CONDITION EFFECTIVELY SHUT DOWN THE PLANT. THE CASE IS NOW ON APPEAL. EPA FAVORS A TREATMENT PROCESS WITH INCINERATION OF THE RESIDUE. IN ANOTHER CASE U.S. STEEL SUBMITTED WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS BUT COMPANY OFFICIALS FAILED TO SIGN THE REQUISITE FORMS. THESE SIGNATURES WERE OBTAINED AFTER OTHER COMPANIES SIMILARLY SITUATED FAILED TO TAKE SIMILAR ACTION. THE GOVERNMENT CLEARLY INTENDS TO ENFORCE THE PERMIT SYSTEM. (GRANT-FLORIDA)en_US
dc.description.urihttp://gbic.tamug.edu/request.htmen_US
dc.historyen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1969.3/23194
dc.latitudeen_US
dc.locationen_US
dc.longitudeen_US
dc.notesen_US
dc.placeen_US
dc.publisheren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries50768.00en_US
dc.relation.urien_US
dc.scaleen_US
dc.seriesen_US
dc.subject*INDUSTRIAL WASTESen_US
dc.subject*INJUNCTIONSen_US
dc.subject*JUDICIAL *PERMITSen_US
dc.subject*RIVERS AND HARBORS ACTen_US
dc.subjectADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIESen_US
dc.subjectADOPTION OF PRACTICESen_US
dc.subjectHEAT TREATMENTen_US
dc.subjectHoustonen_US
dc.subjectHouston Ship Channelen_US
dc.subjectINDUSTRIAL WATERen_US
dc.subjectLEGALen_US
dc.subjectLEGAL ASPECTSen_US
dc.subjectLEGAL REVIEWen_US
dc.subjectNAVIGABLE WATERSen_US
dc.subjectOilen_US
dc.subjectPENALTIESen_US
dc.subjectPERMITSen_US
dc.subjectPOLITICIAL ASPECTSen_US
dc.subjectPOLLUTIONen_US
dc.subjectPROHIBITORYen_US
dc.subjectSeepageen_US
dc.subjectSW 3070 Water quality controlen_US
dc.subjectSW 4050 Water law and institutionsen_US
dc.subjectTexasen_US
dc.subjectWASTE DISPOSAL WELLSen_US
dc.subjectWASTESen_US
dc.subjectWATERen_US
dc.subjectWATER POLLUTIONen_US
dc.subjectWater pollution sourcesen_US
dc.subjectWater qualityen_US
dc.subjectWATER QUALITY CONTROLen_US
dc.subjectWATER QUALITY STANDARDSen_US
dc.subjectWater supplyen_US
dc.subjectWellsen_US
dc.titleWater polluters tangle with the law and loseen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
dc.universityen_US
dc.vol-issue()en_US

Files

Collections

Galveston Bay Bibliography
GBIC Abstracts (full text not available through Jack K. Williams Library)