||Cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment industry /
Burris, Susan M.
||Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Science and Technology.
|| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division ; Available from the National Technical Information Service,
Effluent quality--Standards--United States. ;
Refuse disposal industry--United States--Cost effectiveness. ;
Centralized industrial waste treatment facilities--United States--Cost effectiveness. ;
Factory and trade waste--Economic aspects--United States.
Waste water treatment ;
Water treatment plants ;
Waste processing plants ;
Point sources ;
Water pollution control ;
Cost effectiveness ;
Standards compliance ;
Water pollution economics ;
Economic impact ;
Cost analysis ;
Organic compounds ;
Water pollution standards ;
Pollution regulations ;
Industrial waste treatment ;
Waste streams ;
Chemical effluents ;
Best technology ;
POTW(Publicly Owned Treatment Works) ;
Publicly owned treatment works
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||73 pages : illustrations ; 28 cm
||This analysis, submitted in support of proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment (CWT) industry, investigates the cost-effectiveness of 24 regulatory options, representing all possible combinations of nine proposed control options for three subcategories of CWT operations. Chapter 2 of this report discusses the methods used for this cost-effectiveness analysis. Chapter 2 also includes a discussion of the required differences for estimating pollutant removals from direct-discharging CWT facilities as opposed to indirect-discharges (facilities whose effluent receives treatment at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) before it is discharged to surfaces waters). In addition, Chapter 2 describes how compliance costs were annualized, how two different cost-effectiveness values were calculated, and how they can be used to compare the merits of each regulatory option. Chapter 3 presents the findings of this analysis and identifies a subset of the 30 regulatory options that are demonstrably more costly and less effective than other options. Chapter 4 compares the remaining most efficient options to other promulgated rules.
||"January 1995"--Cover. "Office of Water"--Cover. "EPA 821-R-95-004"--Cover.
||Washington, DC :
||See also PB95-186821 and PB95-187001.
|Corporate Au Added Ent
||United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Science and Technology. Engineering and Analysis Division. ; United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
|PUB Date Free Form
||PC A04/MF A01
|OCLC Time Stamp
|OCLC Rec Leader
||01687cam 2200337Ka 45020