Click for next page ( 204


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 203
Index A Acceptable daily intake (ADI) acceptable soil contaminant level derived from, 52 for carcinogens, 52, 160 conversion to unit cancer risk, 156 definition, 36, 37, 154 derivation, 38, 49, 60-61 gassifier wastes, 160 henry metals, 160 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 160 volatile inorganics, 160 sec ~80 Dose Air quality, Washington State standards for, 54 Animal experiments of carcinogenicity, 154 data base from, 16 extrapolation of toxicologic data from, 6,38,49-50 Applied action levels application in site risk appraisal, 71-72,96 arsenic, 80 chloroform, 83-84,96 definition, 7,44,68, 71,94,96 derivation, 44,46, 72 naphthylene and xylene, 74 uncertainties in, 96 203 Aquifers biodegradation in, 143,157 classification system for, 31 cleanup potential, 65-66, 89-go, 92-93,103-104 major, risk assessment for, 169-170 vulnerability assessment, 141-142 Arizona Department of Health Services, numerical rating of priority pesticides, 142 Arsenic ADI, 160,162, 170 carcinogenic risk, 160,162,170 case study of contamination, 75-82 C California EPA regulatory role and responsibilities in, 125 hazardous materials storage ordinance, 123 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, 124 Regional Water Quality Control Board, 124,131-132 regulatory agency roles and responsibilities, 123-125

OCR for page 203
204 remedial action strategies, 125-131 statutes for site prioritization, 69 Santa Clara ground water contamination issues, 120-139 Santa Clara Valley Water District, description, 120-123 134-135 state Superfund functions, 124 Water Service Company well, carbon tetrachloride contamination, 131 California Department of Health Services cleanup-standard-setting method, 7, 37,43-48,54,56-63, 67-97 regulatory roles and responsibilities, 124,131 Carbon tetrachloride carcinogenic risk/ADI, 162,170 contamination, case study, 131 Carcinogenic potency factor, 37, 40,42,53, 154-155 Carcinogenic risk acceptability of, 62-63,147 estimation of, 40, 62, 153-156 excess unit, 24 Hyde Park landfill chemicals, 162-167, 176 importance of assessing, 16 target levels, 42, 58-59 unit cancer risk, 154 Carcinogens acceptable daily dose derivation. 50 acceptable daily intake, 52-53 definition of cleanup levels for, 35 ground water protection goals, development of, 24-25 maximum exposure levels for, 44-46,49 multiple exposures to, 43 regulation problems, 113-114 Case studies arsenic-contaminated site, 75-82 California decision tree process, 75-94 California Water Services Company well, Los Altos, 131 carbon tetrachloride, 131 chloroform contamination of ground water, 82-94 costs of cleanup, 102-104 IBM, San Jose, 129-130 Fairchild Corp., San Jose, 130, 138 INDEX PCB contamination, 102-103 Santa Clara County, California, 128-131 trichloroethane contamination of ground water, 129-130 trichloroethylene contamination of ground water, 103,168 Chlorination, risks from by-products of, 91, 96,157 Chloroform carcinogenic risk/ADI, 162,170 ground water contamination case study, 82-94,96 Chlorinated furans, carcinogenic potency, 155 Clean Air Act, 14,112 Clean Water Act, 3 application in EPA ground water protection strategy, 23 application to waste site cleanup, 112 Cleanup levels ambiguous legal areas on, 113 applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), 3, 4,8,22-23 arsenic, 82 conservatisms in, 14,49,61,172 definition of, 1, 7,8, 35, 43-44, 46-47,51,57-62,98 environmentalists' views on, 110-114 implementability, 33, 94 legal/regulatory framework for, 98-101 media-specific numerical criteria, derivation of, 57-62 multiple agent/multiple media. 47,84-85 numerical criteria for, 112 single agent/multiple media, 47 single agent/single medium, 47 state criteria most frequently used, 101 stringency expected by water utilities, 8 at Superfund sites, 3, 22-33 target, 42 uncertainties in, 111-112, 131 Cleanup levels, setting of absolute standard-based approach, 34-36, 55, 132 acceptable daily dose derivation, 58-59 agencies responsible for, 3, 6

OCR for page 203
INDEX approaches to, 1, 5-7,14,22-66, 131-134 California approach, 43-48,54, 56-63,67-97 carcinogenicity treatment, 58-59, 62-63 case-by-case approach, 110-111, 132 case studies, 73, 75-94 citizen and community group involvement in, 8 classification of water for, 23 comparative risk approach, 4 contaminant characteristics in, 27 cost considerations in, 101-106, 111,117, 127,131-132,134 data gathering, handling, and analysis, 68, 70,94 delay in, costs of, 106-107 detection limit issue, 113-114,147 duration-of-exposure considerations in, 58-59 engineering role in, 187-190 environmental criteria or standards used in, 4,24, 59, 118-119 environmental fate determinations for, 73-77,83,85-88 EPA strategy for, 23, 37-43, 54, 56-63,110-111 future-use issue in, 31-32 health assessment in, 42 hydrogeologic factors in, 27 liability considerations in, 104-105,107-108 limited increases in allowable concentrations of contaminants, 26-27 major issues, 4-5,107-108,110 media addressed, 55,58-59 multimedia approach, 47,57-63, 68,94 New Jersey approach, 51-54, 56-63 at non-NPL sites, 4 one-in-a-million cancer risk approach, 4,180-181 population sensitivity influences on, 26 problem areas, 1, 6, 9,108-109, 111, 123 progress toward, 10 regulatory strategies, 191-193 relative approach, 35-36, 55 205 risk determination for, 73-76, 77, 80,85-88; dCC ~80 Risk assessment risk factors in, 21 routes of absorption considered in, 58-59 scientific and technical bases used in, 2,8-10 statutes relevant to, 3,112-113 structure/activity relationships, 154-155 substances considered in, 58-59 target level definition, 42-43 technological issues in, 110 terminological differences in, 37-38,43-44,48,55-56,63-64 threshold approach, 14-15 toxicologic data base for, 37, 58-59,154-155 U.S. Army approach, 47-51, 54, 56-63 Washington State strategy, 54, 56-63 zero-risk issue, 113 Cc also Environmental standard setting Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1, 24, 125, 140 Concentration, Cc Contaminant concentration Construction workers, particulate exposures near arsen~c- contaminated site, 81 Contaminant concentration acceptable levels, 36 acceptable soil contaminant level, 51-53,81 air-to-soil transformation, 80-81 alternative concentration limits, 99-100 applied action levels, 7, 44, 46, 68, 71-72, 74, 80,83-84, 96 definition, 7 derivation of, 24, 42 difficulty relating to human health or ecological values, 15 dispersion modeling, 37 factors relating to standard setting for, 25-26 in foods, FDA guidelines, 49 low levels, cost-effectiveness of cleanup, 127 maximum levels, 23,24, 49, 73, 82, 147 I.

OCR for page 203
206 population sensitivity, 26 preliminary pollutant limit value, 48,50-51 target levels, calculation, 42-43 trace levels, 16-17,21 transformation of various concentrations to single risk value, 73 Contaminant consumption chronic/subchronic daily intake, 38-41 intake factor, 8CC Average daily intake transfer factor, 49 Contaminants/toxic substances acceptable intake values, 37-38, 40 additive effects, 6, 40-41, 58-sg, 63, 72,84 bioconcentration in fish, 159-161 biodegradation of, 143,157 critical toxicity value, 37-38 concentrated, cleanup technology for, 104 daily intake estimation, 37-38,40 data requirements on properties, 44 environmental partitioning of, 55-56 exposure pathways, 34-35,48, 52-153, 156-157,159-161, 175 media-specific numerical criteria for, 6,65 movement and fate in ground water, modeling, 14~147 multiplicative effects, 6 noncarcinogenic effects, 40-41 nonthreshold, Cc Carcinogens plume monitoring in ground water, 91 risk ranking in ground water, 140-147 subsurface behavior evaluation, 92 target levels, 42-43 transportation of, 124 8CC ~80 Carcinogens; Noncarcinogens; and specific chemicals Critical toxicity value definition, 37 maximum exposure levels derived from, 45-46 INDEX D Dioxins carcinogenic risk/ADI, 166-167 detection limit risk, 114 in fish, 161, 166 potency, 154, 155 Dissolved oxygen standard, 15 Dose acceptable daily, 48-50, 58-59 consumed, Cc Contaminant consumption maximum exposure level, 43-46, 49, 59, 61 maximum tolerated, for use in chronic bioassay, 175-176 minimum effective, 37 no observed adverse effect levels, 38, 45, 49, 58, 61, 147 no-effect levels, 49, 61 reference, 154 threshold limit values, 44-46 Cc also Acceptable daily intake Dose-response data acceptable daily dose/intake derived from, 49, 53 maximum exposure levels derived from, 44-45 Drinking water guidelines, derivation of acceptable soil contaminant levels from, 52, 61 Drinking water standards trihalomethanes, 96 use to establish cleanup levels for waste sites, 112 , . : Environmental Defense Fund cleanup levels supported by, 8 role in National Contingency Plan, 110 Environmental standard setting advantages of, 36 aesthetic concerns in, 14 conservatism in, 14, 18, 20 elements involved in, 17, 31-33 evaluation of approaches, 179-180 historical context, 13-17 maximum concentration level goals, 23 pesticide residues, 15 principles of, 18-21 risk goals, 180-181 secondary standards, 14-15

OCR for page 203
INDEX technology-based approach, 15, 32 threshold approach, 14 tools for, 178-183 verification methodologies, 19-20 welfare effects in, 14 worst-case analyses in, 17, 19-20 zero-risk vs. nonzero risk, 16 Cc also Cleanup levels, setting of Epidemiologic studies, critical toxicity values derived from, 38 Estimated daily intake definition, 37-38 derivation, 39-40 Exposure assessment acceptable intake, 37-38 additivity across all media, 72 in California DHS site rink appraisal, 71-72 chloroform contamination of ground water, 82 chronic, 37 constraints on, 4-5, 31, 34 for construction workers near arsenic-contaminated rite, 81 cumulative, 72 daily intake estimation, 37-40 data base for, 185 under diverse conditions, 185 duration of exposure in, 39, 58-59 hazard index in, 41, 43 methods, 184-186 modeling, 147 multiple chemical/multiple route, 31, 34, 40-41, 43, 84-85 in rick determinations, 156-157 strengths and weaknesses in, 184-185 uncertainties in, 186 Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp., cleanup of trichloroethane contamination of ground water, 130, 138 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, numerical rating schemes for priority pesticides, 142 207 G Ground water characterization, 85 classification of, 23, 24, 31, 137 current-use (Class IIA), 23-25 interconnection with adjacent water, 23 maximum contaminant level goals, 3 modeling, 2, 13~151 nondrinkable (Class III), 23 potential-use (Class JIB), 23 special (Class A, 23-25 Ground water cleanup/protection acceptable soil contaminant levels relevant to, 52 active approaches, 125-126, 129-131, 135 air~tripping, 103, 126, 129, 131, 189 alternatives, development of, 24-28 applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, 22-23 bentonite slurry cutoff wall, 126, 128 California strategies, 125-131 case studies, 82-94, 103-104, 128-131 conceptual risk/restoration time plot for carcinogens, 25, 27 cost considerations, 27, 32-33, 103-104, 134 decision analysis for, 25-28 EPA strategy, 23 establishing and meeting goals for, 22-33 extraction wells, 126-127, 129-130 flexibility needed in decision-making process, 27-30 goals, 131-134 high-rate pumping, 26, 66, 103, 116 Integrated Environmental Management Plan, 125 model use for, 139-151 NCP, 22, 28, 95 passive approach, 126, 135 plume containment measures, 24, 91, 93, 128-130 public hearing process, 133 removal of soil/water for treatment or disposal, 125-126

OCR for page 203
208 restoration time periods, 24, 26-27 scenarios, 27-29 source control, 26,66,93,189 Superfund goals, 22-23 technological considerations/ capabilities in, 7,32-33, 104 Washington State standard for, 54 wellhead treatment, 133, 135, 189 em also Remediation of sites Ground water contamination contaminant movement and fate, 133,140-147 exposure pathways, 86 hazardous waste sites known to contribute to, 2 liability issues in, 127-128,133 ranking risk of chemicals in, 140~147 risk assessment of, 161,168 in Santa Clara, California, 120-138 social factors in, 128 at Superfund sites, cleanup levels, 3 H A. Hazardous waste land disposal facilities quality of, 116 waste disposal at, 103,116 Hazardous waste sites applicability of numerical criteria developed for other statutes to, 6 arsenic-contaminated, 75-82 assessment procedures, 41-42, 53-54,68-70,75, 77,82-85, 92,94 baseline of protection at, 11 1-1 12 case studies, 76-82,102-103 categorization on basis of party involvement with, 69 chemical analysis of, 37 data base on contamination at, 17 ground water cleanup levels at, 3 health risk estimation at, 152-176 landfills, 116, 159~161 manufactured gas sites, 158-160 modeling of conditions at, 6, 18-20,37 multidisciplinary team evaluation approach, 92 INDEX National Priority List (NPL), 2, 3,34,99,102, 125; sec also Superfund sites non-NPL, 4, 106 number, 2,34 permanent treatment at, 117 preliminary appraisal, 68, 75,82 property transfer laws on, 100 public education on, 10, 135-136 risk appraisal, 70-72, 77, 83-85 risk assessment illustrations at, 158-170 setting environmental standards for, 13-21, 34-66; Cc also Cleanup levels, setting of terrain roughness height calculation for, 76-77 trace chemical movement, 21 transport pathway representations, 70, 92-93 water quality goals at, 1 Hyde Park landfill, risk assessment at, 15~167, 176 I IBM Corp., cleanup of TCA contamination of ground water, 120130 Industry expenditures for cleanup, 106 impact of standard setting on, 8 liability effects on, 108 Landfills contamination from, 2, 116 disposal of Superfund site wastes at, 116 Hyde Park, risk assessment at, 150167, 176 soil cleanup costs in, 105 Love Canal, cause, 32, 115; Cc also Hyde Park landfill M Manufactured gas sites, risk assessment at, 158-160 Massachusetts hazardous waste sites in, 34 Superlien statute, 100 Maximum exposure levels

OCR for page 203
INDEX acceptable action levels derived from, 46 definition, 43-44, 46 derivation, for humans, 44-46, 49, 61, 84 nonthreshold substances, 46 threshold substances, 44-46 uncertainty in, 45 Models/modeling additivity, 154 air quality dispersion, development of, 19 biodegradation, 143 capabilities, 15, 107 code testing, 144 of compliance with regulatory requirements, 140147 concentrations of toxic substances, 43 concerns about, and needs in, 145 contaminant transport, 4, 6, 37, 114-115, 127, 140-147 DRASTIC, 142 empirical, 142 EPA use of, 140147 exposure, 147 ground water, 2, 14~147, 184 industrial source complex, 80 mathematical, 142-145 Mitre, for site prioritization, 69 monitoring used with, 148 multimedia effects in, 18, 20 pesticide fate, 143-144 quality control of, 6, 19, 144-145 ranking risk of chemicals in ground water, 140-147 regulatory or policy roles, 141, 145-147 remediation applications, 140, 143, 147 risk assessment, 147 simulation, 143-144 synergism at waste sites, 154 uncertainties in, 6, 9, 114-115 validation criteria for, 19 water quality, 2, 139-151 Monitoring California reliance on, 43 capabilities for, 15 use with modeling, 148 N Naphthalene applied action level, 74 National Contingency Plan (NCP) 209 Environmental Defense Fund role in, 110 exceptions to, 28 remediation standards at Superfund sites, 22, 100 National Environmental Policy Act, 14 New Jersey cleanup levels for contaminated soils, 51-53 Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act, 100 funding for cleanup, 106 New York funding for cleanup, 106 Noncarcinogens acceptable daily intakes, 38, 52-53 ground water protection goals, development of, 24 target level calculation, 42-43 Nonthreshold agents, ecc Carcinogens o Ozone concerns in standard setting for, 14 p Particulate emissions of arsenic, estimation, 78-82 projection of downwind concentrations, 80-82 respirable rate, estimation, 29 Pesticides carcinogenic risk/ADI, 162-167, 170-171 modeling fate of, 143 numerical rating schemes for, 142 standard setting for, 15 Petroleum products, contamination of ground water in California, 123 Photochemical oxidants, concerns in standard setting for, 14 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) cleanup options for contaminated soils, 104-105 costs of different cleanup levels, 102-103 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

OCR for page 203
210 ADIs and cancer potency, 15~160, 166-167, 170 structure/activity relationships, 55 R Remediation of sites aeration of soil/water, 126 alternatives to, 24-28, 75-76, 88-94, 189 barrier construction, 77, 126, 130, 189 California decision tree for, 43-48, 54, 56-63, 67-97 chemical destruction on rite, 105 costs 3, 8, 93-94, 98, 101-105, 115 development of mitigation strategy and selection of remedial action, 74-75, 88-94 170 environmentalists' views on, _ 114-116 EPA-preferred technologies for, 116 evaluation of effectiveness of actions, 73 fly ash/cement stabilization, 105 funding responsibilities for, 99, 102, 105-106, 125, 135 future-use considerations in, 107, 114-1 15 incineration of soil onsite, 105, 117 permanent treatment technologies, 117 point of compliance, 114-116, 118 property purchase to avoidance, 115 reimbursement for, 172 removal and containment strategies, 116, 126, 189 risk levels after, 113 schedule for, 101 soil fixation with inorganic polymer/cement mixture, 105, 117 technology for, 104-105, 111, 116-117, 136 vitrification in situ, 105 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup approaches under, 98-99 cost considerations under, 100 facilities regulated under, 2 focus of, 99-100 INDEX ground water protection level determinations under, 22-23 risk management approach, 99-100 Superfund contrasted with, 99-100 Risk assessment additive effects vs. multiplicative effects, 6, 31 alternative concentration limits in, 99-100 approaches, 153-156 assumption of equilibrium partitioning between media in, 6 California DHS approach for hazardous waste sites, 70-72, 80-82 carcinogenic, 37, 40,46,153-156; JCC also Carcinogenic risk data base adequacy for, 4-5,8-9, economic cost of cleanup in, 106 environmental fate and, 73-76, 85-88 exposure considerations in, 156-160 factors in, 153,158 future-use issue in, 31-32,107 Hyde Park landfill, 159-167, 176 illustrations of, at hazardous waste sites, 158-170 importance in setting cleanup levels, 2, 16 for major aquifer threatened by illicit dumping, 169-170, 174-175 at manufactured gas sites, 158-160 modeling, 147 multiple exposures incorporated in, 31 probabilistic, 108 separation from risk management, 64 single compound disposal, 168 steps, 153 strengths and weaknesses in, 181-182 uncertainty in, 4-5,9, 108, 17~171 worker safety standards used in, 72 Risk levels acceptable, 136 cancer, selection of, 4

OCR for page 203
INDEX postcleanup, 113 risk index scores, 73-74, 80, 91 setting goals for, 180-182 Risk management differential, 138 information base for decisions, 8 - 9 RCRA approach, 99 regulatory focus of, 5 standard for initiation by California DHS, 72, 87 strengths and weaknesses . 181-182 value judgments in, 7, 10 S Safe Drinking Water Act, 3 application in EPA ground water protection strategy, 23 application to waste site cleanup, 112, 119 Silicon Valley, water quality threat from, 121 Soil contamination acceptable contaminant levels, 51-53 California DHS responsibilities on, 124 effect on other media, 113 particle size distribution of arsenic in, 78 removal and landfill disposal, 126 standard for cleanup, 104-105 Washington State standard for cleanup, 54 Soil erosion threshold friction velocity for, 78 threshold wind velocity for, 79 Soils characterization of, 92 incineration of, 104-105 Solid Waste Disposal Act, 112 Solvents characteristics and priority for cleanup, 121, 123 illegal disposal of, 134 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 2 cleanup policy under, 98-100 delay of cleanup process by, 101 effect on EPA spending rate for cleanup, 105-106 effects on site remediation costs, 3 211 permanent treatment language in, 117 point of compliance under, 114 public participation under, 99 RCRA contrasted with, 99-101 remediation schedule under, 101 Section 121, 3, 4 success of, 4 Superfund sites background level cleanup at, 112 cleaned up, 106 cleanup costs for, 66 EPA Public Health Evaluation Manual for, 37-43 ground water classification relevant to, 23 legal settlements, forms of, 3 National Contingency Plan for remediation, 22, 100 number, 2, 34, 102 orphan sites, 125 pre-SARA resolution of conflicts over remedial action at, 3 record of decision results for, 101-102 Reilly Tar, 25-26 variation in cleanup levels at, 111 T Trichloroethylenes biodegradation of, 157 cleanup of ground water contaminated with, 103-104, 168 Trichloroethane, cleanup of ground water contaminated with, 120130 Toxic substances, dCC ~80 Carcinogens; Contaminants/ toxic substances; Non carcinogens Toxic Substances Control Act, 16 Toxicity, critical value for, 37-38 U U.S. Department of Defense facilities posing contamination risks, 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup policy under RCRA, 98-99

OCR for page 203
212 cleanup technology preferences of, 116 Integrated Environmental Management Plan, 125 modeling used by, 146-147 Office of Drinking Water, 3, 141 Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 3 Office of Pesticide Programs, 146-147 Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, 146 Public Health Evaluation Manual for Superfund sites, 37-43 role in cleanup of Santa Clara, California ground water contamination, 125 spending rate for cleanup, 105-106 U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines for contaminant concentrations in foods, 49 Underground storage tanks, contamination from, 2, 121, 123, 134 United Kingdom, cleanup program, 32 INDEX V Vinyl chloride, 157, 166-167 W Water quality dissolved oxygen standard, 15 goals at hazardous waste sites, 1 Water quality criteria application to waste sites, 112, 119 derivation of acceptable soil contaminant levels from, 52 Water utilities cleanup levels supported by, 8 X Xylene ADI and cancer potency, 160 applied action level, 74 carcinogenic risk/ADI, 166-167