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 204
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 205
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 206
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 207
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 208
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 209
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 210
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 211
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 212
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
cleanup levels
