Ranking Hazardous-Waste Sites for Remedial Action (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 STATE PRIORITY SETTING
7 STATE PRIORITY SETTING
Pages 211-224
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 211... ...
The approaches consid ered fall into three categories: systems similar to the EPA Hazard Ranking System THEIR model; other explicit numeric systems leading to a site spe cific score; and systems that categorize sites with the highest priority into three or more groups based on a narra live description of the severity of ef fects. This chapter examines several of the state ranking models with respect 211
|
From page 212... ...
STATES WITH RANKING SYSTEMS SIMILAR TO THE EPA HAZARD-RANKING SYSTEM California, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington use indices of con lamination severity-such as chemical toxicity, quantity, ant! mo bility in the environment that closely resemble those used in the EPA hazard ranking system (Federal Register, 1990; California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 1991; Oregon Depart ment of Environmental Quality, 1991; EPA, 1992; Ohio Division of Emergency ant!
|
From page 213... ...
Indices of exposure include distance to nearest structure ant! sen sitive environment.
|
From page 214... ...
The most significant differences among the four states are in the scoring of the substance characteristics attribute. For example, the middle value of the quantity (in tons)
|
From page 215... ...
Because the Or egon system has higher middle values for toxicology ant! target parameters, and approximately the same values for migration, the overall site rank would be relatively more influenced by contami nant migration than for the other states.
|
From page 217... ...
so O Q O o Cal lo 8 8 ~4 .~ Cal of ~ To 3 .= ~ ~· ~ 3 ~ ~Cal ·z a' 3 o o ._ Cal Pa .
|
From page 218... ...
Sources: Material from California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 1991; Ohio Division of Emergency and Remedial Response, 1992; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1991; Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992.
|
From page 219... ...
+ Waste quantity = SC Sources: Material from California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 1991; Ohio Division of Emergency and Remedial Response, 1992; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1991; Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992. Solubility could be consiclered roughly equivalent to the extent of containment on site, which, together with toxicity ant!
|
From page 220... ...
For example, environmental contamination is scores! by choosing from among 3 ~ clescrtbeci conditions each of which has a point, as illustrated in the following example: One point shall be scored for surface water if a surface water body or wetland is located within 1/2 mile of the site, three points shall be scored for ground water if a sheen is visible on an exposed groundwater surface, nine points shall be scored for surface water if the department of public health has issued a fish advisory for a water body and the cause of such an advisory can be attributed, in part, to the site (Environmental Response Division, 1990~.
|
From page 221... ...
For example, New York, in its Category One (High Priority) , requires a determination of "probable release to grounc3water which is a drinking water supply." A Category Two site must demonstrate "minimal potential for release to groundwater that is a drinking water source," and Category Three "minimal potential for release to groundwater which is not a drinking water source." Other characteristics of each category include release to air, release to surface water, and effect upon a sensitive environment.
|
From page 222... ...
provide results to help establish priorities for effective use of funcis. For many of the states consiclered, there is evidence of very thoughtful development of site ranking moclels such as parameters for location of fisheries, containment structures, population densi ties, and sources of drinking water.
|
From page 223... ...
States not using formal ranking models often tend to develop less data intensive methods that rely on the judgment of profes signals in the state agencies to integrate information into site rankings. A cletailec!
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.