Environmental criterion

Air Quality Criteria forTead Supplement to the 1986 Addendum, U.S. EPA, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Washington, D.C., 1990. Technical Support Document to Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Toxic Metalsfrom Non-Ferrous Metal Melting, State of California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Sacramento, Calif., 1992. 

Health Effects AssessmentforEthyl Chloride Report EPA/600/8-88/036, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1987. 

International Programme on Chemical Safety Environmental Criteria 93,1989. 

Ventilation is used to maintain a satisfactory environment within enclosed spaces. The environmental criteria controlled may be ... 

EPA. 1984a. Health and environmental effects profile for methyl parathion. Cincitmati, OH U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. NTIS PB88-180534. 

EPA. 1980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Trichloroethylene. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH for the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. NTIS No. PB81-117871. 

Draft of "Recommended Interim Environmental Criteria for Six Munitions Compounds," prepared by Jack C. Dacre, circa August 1980. 

One of the most important environmental criteria for the production of energy crops is the energy yield per hectare. The energy yield is mainly dependent on the biomass yield and on the conversion technology, and hence on the fraction of crop used as energy source (Table 5.11). 

CLL approach and ecosystem, risk analysis. This approach provides insights on assessment and measurement endpoints for ecosystem-level EcoRA since it has a set of environmental criteria to detect the state of ecosystems critical load itself can be treated as a criterion for ecosystem sustainability (Bashkin, 2002). Moreover, one can derive spatial ecosystem risk estimates based on the percentage of ecosystems protected/potentially at risk under the current and predicted level of pollutant loads. 

The scenarios that have been selected as most optimal in terms of technical and environmental criteria finally have to be assessed with respect to financial consequences. Capital costs and operating costs have to be compared with the costs that are considered financially feasible. 

---