Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo

Secondary Treatment of Municipal Wastewater in the St. Louis Area: Minimal Impact Expected

  Premium   Download PDF Now (66 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date May 12, 1978
Report No. CED-78-76
Subject
Summary:

The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 was to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Publicly-owned treatment works were required to provide secondary treatment by July 1, l977, and to use the best practicable technology by 1983. To assist publicly owned treatment works in providing secondary treatment, the Act authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants of up to 75 percent of the costs. Federal funds approximating $163 million are planned to be spent for the construction of two municipal secondary treatment facilities in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

No significant change in Mississippi River water quality is expected to result from the planned investment of about $216 million, including $163 million in federal funds, in secondary treatment facilities in St. Louis. Although EPA and other officials have mentioned possible long-range reductions in potentially cancer-causing materials, these benefits have not been validated or quantified. Large increases in energy use and large accumulations of sludge from secondary treatment operations are expected. These considerations will have an impact not only on energy and environmental issues but also on the St. Louis area residents who will have to bear increased operation and maintenance costs. According to St. Louis Sewer District officials, these costs will more than double. Sewer District officials felt that little benefit would result from upgrading two treatment plants from primary to secondary status. However, both Missouri and Illinois officials believed that more benefits would result if federal funds were used for other projects in their states.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports