[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-567387-105":59,"doc-detail-567387-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","airwater-pollution-report-issue","AIR/WATER pollution report - Issue","","Weekly environmental protection coverage focusing on air and water pollution policy developments. Highlights include House action to reauthorize and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 1650), debates over groundwater provisions and “rational basis” regulatory language, and site-specific restrictions affecting aquifers and river basin sources. It also covers litigation pressure on stronger radionuclide and truck emission particulate and nitrogen oxides standards, plus brief sector news on superfund funding, ozone-related greenhouse trace gases, and vehicle evaporative emissions concerns.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/airwater-pollution-report-issue/567387/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/airwater-pollution-report-issue/567387.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-10-13",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the House panel approve regarding drinking water?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The House Energy Committee reported out legislation to reauthorize and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, with H.R. 1650 receiving strong bipartisan support and limited changes.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why was the “rational basis” language discussed?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It would require the EPA to promulgate standards when a “rational basis” exists for believing a contaminant may cause adverse health effects; an amendment adding language about weighing available health evidence was accepted.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What legal actions are environmental groups pursuing against the EPA?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"They filed suits seeking stronger radionuclide emission standards and challenging truck and bus nitrogen oxides and particulate standards, arguing current standards do not adequately protect public health.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},567387,1792084482,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","# AIR/WATER pollution report\n\nWeekly Report on Environmental Protection  \n        May 20,1985               Page 191  \nVol.23 No.20  \nDrinking Water Bill Moves in the House……          …Page 192  \nThomas Nearing Final Decisions on Air Toxies Strategy………Page 193  \nEvaporative Emissions Pose Problem in New Cars,EPA Says…Page 194  \nNRDC Urges NYC Action To Cut Diesel PM Emissions……     …Page 195  \nEPA Updates Wastestreams Rule………   ………   ……   …Page 196  \nSLANTS &TRENDS  \nCLEAN WATER STOP AND GO:The Clean Water amendments,which supporters had hopedto bring to the floor of the Senate this week,have been stalled by legislatorsfrom those states that stand to lose construction grant funds because of the re-vamped allocation formula.Sn.Dave Durenberger(R.-Minn.),who opposed theplan in the Environment Committee,is leading the effort,aided by other midwest-ern and eastern senators.They contend the formula is politically motivated.  \nAND A YELLOW LIGHT is also blinking on the House side.The Water Resources Sub-committee is set to mark up the Howard-Roe water bill tomorrow,but a fight islooming over the 10-year NPDES permits in the bill.However,a nearly identicalbill slid easily through subcommittee and committee last year,and then passed thefull House by a heavy margin,so environmentalists are expecting that the Senatewill be their best shot at keeping the permit turnover time to five years.  \n鲁 暑 册  \nWIN ONE,LOSE SOME。The administration's last choice for a Superfund revenuesource became the Senate Finance Committee's first choice as the panel approveda measure that would raise about $7.5million over five years,with $1.2 billioneach year to come from an excise tax on sales of major manufacturing companies.The tax is complicated and unfair,Treasury's Mikel Rollyson argues.At thesame time,the committee rejected the waste-end tax,the major component of theEPA/Treasury package.  The administration did pull ahead on one count.The re-maining money to pay for a reauthorized waste cleanup program will be drawn fromthe feedstocks tax,with no funding from general revenues.Meanwhile,Rep.JamesFlorio(D.-N.J.)has finally produced his Superfund plan of action.His bill,similar to one passed last year,calls for $10.1 billion over the next five years.  \n善鲁蕾  \nANOTHER STUDY,ANOTHER WARNING.Trace gases might be just as big a culprit ascarbon dioxide in the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere,the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research found in the latest \"greenhouse effect study.While trace gases go into the air in smaller quantities than CO2,they absorbmore efficiently the radiation that shields us from too much sunlight.The fore-cast,if the gases continue to spew into the air at current rates,is a 1.5°in-erease in the Earth's temperature over the next 50 years.\"We don't want to beaccused of [shouting]that the sky is falling,but…,\"NCIR's Ralph Cicerone says.  \n## AIR/WATER pollution report.\n\n### HOUSE PANEL APPROVESDRINKING WATER CHANGES\n\nLegislation to reauthorize and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act was report-ed out of House Energy Committee on May 15.  The markup vehicle,H.R。1650,hadstrong bipartisan support and underwent few changes,although Rep.Howard C.Nielson(R.-Utah)tried to weaken the bill's ground water provisions with threeamendments he felt would ensure the protection of western water rights.  \nThe controversial\"rational basis language of the bill,which would requirethe Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate standards any time a \"rationalbasis\"exists for believing a contaminant may cause adverse health effects,wasaddressed by an amendment proposed by Rep.Michael Bilirakis(R.-Fla.)。Afterattempting to clarify the panel's intent by adding the words \"based on a weigh-ing of all available health evidence,\"the amendment was accepted.  \nA site-specific amendment by Rep.Matthew J.Rinaldo(R.-N.J.),which wasaccepted by the panel,would prohibit the introduction of any solid wastes intothe aquifer,aquifer recharge zone or streamflow source of","cbCaipIYCvB67g0B","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipIYCvB67g0B","pdf",3405710,11,"English","# AIR/WATER pollution report.\n## HOUSE PANEL APPROVESDRINKING WATER CHANGES\n## ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUE FOR STRONGERRADIONUCLIDE,TRUCK NO,PM STANDARDS","[{\"question\":\"What does the House panel approve regarding drinking water?\",\"answer\":\"The House Energy Committee reported out legislation to reauthorize and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, with H.R. 1650 receiving strong bipartisan support and limited changes.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was the “rational basis” language discussed?\",\"answer\":\"It would require the EPA to promulgate standards when a “rational basis” exists for believing a contaminant may cause adverse health effects; an amendment adding language about weighing available health evidence was accepted.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal actions are environmental groups pursuing against the EPA?\",\"answer\":\"They filed suits seeking stronger radionuclide emission standards and challenging truck and bus nitrogen oxides and particulate standards, arguing current standards do not adequately protect public health.\"}]","AIR/WATER pollution report - Issue | PDF",1791866179,28]