The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

INDEX
Pages 203-212

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 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 Read the entire page →
From page 204... ... , 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 Read the entire page →
From page 205... ... , 1, 24, 125, 140 Concentration, Cc Contaminant concentration Construction workers, particulate exposures near arsen~ccontaminated 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 Read the entire page →
From 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 Read the entire page →
From page 207... ... , 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 Read the entire page →
From page 208... ... , 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 Read the entire page →
From page 209... ... cleanup options for contaminated soils, 104-105 costs of different cleanup levels, 102-103 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Read the entire page →
From page 210... ... 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 Read the entire page →
From page 211... ... , 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. Read the entire page →
From 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 Read the entire page →

From 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

Read the entire page →

From page 204...

... , 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

Read the entire page →

From page 205...

... , 1, 24, 125, 140 Concentration, Cc Contaminant concentration Construction workers, particulate exposures near arsen~ccontaminated 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

Read the entire page →

From 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

Read the entire page →

From page 207...

... , 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

Read the entire page →

From page 208...

... , 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

Read the entire page →

From page 209...

... cleanup options for contaminated soils, 104-105 costs of different cleanup levels, 102-103 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Read the entire page →

From page 210...

... 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

Read the entire page →

From page 211...

... , 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.

Read the entire page →

From 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

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

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.

INDEX Pages 203-212

INDEX
Pages 203-212