Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

1. SETTING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: A BREAK FROM THE PAST OR A CONTINUUM?
Pages 13-21

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 13...
... After ~ examined the program for this symposium and read some of the thoughtful papers prepared for our discussion, ~ became particularly apprehensive about triggering such a reaction this afternoon. Certainly, as a practicing scientist, ~ would be much more comfortable reporting to you on, for instance, my findings on a comparison of recent ground water investigations involving the effects of well casing materials on monitoring results.
From page 14...
... air standard, a major part of that argument was the size of the margin of safety, as well as where the threshold was. In general, in setting those early standards the threshold concept had value in addressing health concerns, but it did not routinely allow ecological or other values, including aesthetic concerns, to be addressed.
From page 15...
... But dealing with other waterborne pollutants proved far more troublesome, and, in fact, the committees writing the 1972 legislation essentially threw up their hands over the difficulty of directly relating the concentrations of contaminants in water to human health or to ecological values. Essentially, the approach adopted in the law mandated a technology-based standard.
From page 16...
... This conclusion has led to growing efforts to focus on long-term chronic effects and a corresponding increase in research on and the application of quantitative risk assessment. In recent years since 198~public concerns over hazardous wastes have overtaken the earlier focus on conventional pollutants and moved to an almost exclusive preoccupation with the presence of toxic chemicals and the possibility that even trace concentrations can cause long-term chronic health damage.
From page 17...
... As we look at our knowledge base regarding contamination at hazardous waste sites, we find that, in comparison to our base for air and water standard setting in the pre-1977 period, we know very much less than was then the case in ahnost all of these categories, particularly ground water. Our intellectual capital is thin.
From page 18...
... In this regard, we can learn something from some of the preceding efforts in standard setting in the more traditional areas. Here, too, we were initially compelled to act, to select numerical values and limits, in the face of incomplete knowledge about pollutant ejects, levels, and transport routes and mechanisms.
From page 19...
... Of course, we do not know everything, but we have begun the process of knowing in a much more vigorous way than we did in 1970. The lessons learned in the often difficult process of developing air quality models to verify standards can be applied in the case of hazardous waste standard setting.
From page 20...
... In areas like hazardous wastes, in which we are faced with inadequate knowledge, tight timetables for taking action, and heightened public concern that we act to protect human health adequately, it is tempting to respond by establishing worst-case conditions, however unrealistic, and regulating "against" them. Take, as one example, the attempt to establish a methodology for Relisting wastes at a hazardous site.
From page 21...
... The relative ranking for the risks associated with hazardous waste sites was low to medium, pretty much right in the middle of EPA programs. Although details of this ranking could be debated, it seems clear that hazardous waste sites are not an overwhelming risk compared with other areas of concern.


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.