USEPA evaluation

In the eighties and early nineties, the USEPA evaluated dietary risk with an analysis method known as the Dietary Risk Evaluation System (DRES) (USEPA, 1991), which was based on the USDA s 1977 to 1978 National Food Consumption Survey. Consequently, dietary exposure assessments became genetically referred to as DRES analyses. Currently, the USEPA is using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM , Version 7.87) (Exponent, 2000), which allows exposure to be calculated from 1994 to 1996 CSFII along with the 1998 supplemental children s survey information. 

USEPA, Evaluation of Dust Samplers for Bare Floors and Upholstery, Report No. 600/R-096/001, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 1996. 

In 1989, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) evaluated the remediation of a Superfund site heavily polluted with chromium. 

T. M. Keinath, Technology Evaluation for Priority Pollutant Removalfrom Dyestuff Manufacture Wastewaters, USEPA report 600/S2-84-055, Washington, D.C., Apr. 1984. 

Chapter 5 describes simplified methods of estimating airborne pollutant concentration distributions associated with stationary emission sources. There are sophisticated models available to predict and to assist in evaluating the impact of pollutants on the environment and to sensitive receptors such as populated areas. In this chapter we will explore the basic principles behind dispersion models and then apply a simplified model that has been developed by EPA to analyzing air dispersion problems. There are practice and study problems at the end of this chapter. A screening model for air dispersion impact assessments called SCREEN, developed by USEPA is highlighted in this chapter, and the reader is provided with details on how to download the software and apply it. 

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) An estimate similar in concept to the RfD, but derived using a less strictly defined methodology. RfDs have replaced ADIs as the USEPA s (Agency) preferred values for use in evaluating potential noiicarcinogenic health effects resulting from exposure to a chemical. 

Refcreiiee Dose (RfD) The USEPA s preferred toxicity value for evaluating noncarcinogcnic effects resulting from exposures at Superfund sites. 

This section describes how the tj pes of to.xicity inforniation arc considered in the to.xicity assessment for carcinogenic effects. A slope factor and the accompanying weight of evidence determination are the toxicity data most commonly used to evaluate potential human carcinogenic risks. The methods the USEPA uses to derive these values arc outlined below. 

Several air quality Hg intensive sites exist and could be used as templates to determine what additional air quality measurements should be included in evaluating the performance of air quality models. These include the USEPA SuperSite programs (http //www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/supersites.html) and the Southeastern Aerosol Research and Characterization (SEARCH) project (http //www.atmospheric-research.com/ studies/SEARCH/index. html). 

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. No specified time interval between field measurements. If the purge volume is small, collect measurements with enough frequency to evaluate stabihty. If the purge volume is large, take field measurements approximately 15 min apart. FLDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Allowable variation between two consecutive readings taken at least 2-3 min apart following the collection of one well volume. ... 

The evaluation for aquatic toxicity on daphnids and fish is reported in Tables 12 and 13. Bold values indicate that compounds are out of the model applicability domain (ECOSAR) or that the prediction is not reliable. ECOSAR and ToxSuite are able to predict all the selected compounds while T.E.S.T. fails in prediction for the daphnia toxicity of perfluorinated compounds (PFOS and PFOA). Tables 12 and 13 include also a limited number of experimental results provided by the model training dataset (some data are extracted from USEPA Ecotox database). Predicted results are in agreement for five compounds only (2, 3, 5, 13 and 14) for both endpoints while the predictions for the other compounds are highly variable. 

In aquatic environments, more research is needed on the chemical speciation of silver to evaluate risk to the organism and its consumers (USEPA 1987 Berthet etal. 1992). Most silver criteria formulated for the protection of aquatic life are now expressed as total recoverable silver per liter (Table 7.8), but total silver measurements do not provide an accurate assessment of potential hazard. Silver ion (Ag+), for example, is probably the most toxic of all silver chemical species and must... 

USEPA (1991) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluations phase I toxicity characterization procedures. EPA 600/6-91/003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth... 

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical I Chemical Methods, USEPA SW846, 3rd ed., Rev. 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1996. 

OSHA/USEPA requires employers, such as the chemical industry service sector, to perform an initial process hazard analysis (PHA) on processes covered by PSM/RMP standards. The PHA must be appropriate to the complexity of the process and must identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process. Employers are required to determine and document the priority order for conducting process hazard analyses based on a rationale that includes such considerations as extent of the process hazards, number of potentially affected employees, age of the process, and operating history of the process. 

Ultimately, the answer to the question of due diligence must be decided at the local level and will depend on a number of considerations. Among other factors, local authorities must decide what level of risk is reasonable in the context of a perceived threat. Careful planning is essential to developing an appropriate response to terrorist threats, and in fact, one primary objective of USEPA s Response Protocol Toolbox (RPTB) is to aid users in the development of their own site-specific plans that are consistent with the needs and responsibilities of the user. Beyond planning, the RPTB considers a careful evaluation of any terrorist threat, and an appropriate response based on the evaluation, to be the most important element of due diligence. 

According to USEPA, the key aspect of the ERA is the problem formulation phase. This phase is characterized by USEPA as the identification of ecosystem components at risk and specification of the endpoints used to assess and measure that risk [13]. Assessment endpoints are an expression of the valued resources to be considered in an ERA, whereas measurement endpoints are the actual measures of data used to evaluate the assessment endpoint. 

Because of the variety and uniqueness of pesticide manufacmring processes and operations, the flow and characteristics of wastewater generated from production plants vary broadly. In 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, and 1984, the USEPA conducted surveys to obtain basic data concerning manufacturing, disposal, and treatment as well as to identify potential sources of priority pollutants in pesticide manufacmrers [7]. The results of these surveys and USEPA s interpretations and evaluations are summarized in the following. 

Further evaluation of SeaKleen and other water-soluble derivatives of 9,10-anthraquinone for use as selective algicides in catfish aquaculture will require additional research such as determining the environmental fate of these quinone-based algicides and whether there is any potential accumulation in the flesh of channel catfish. In addition, studies required by the USEPA for the consideration of the approval of quinone-based algicides in food-fish production ponds will require at least several more years. 

Pesticide regulation makes use of measurements of specific fate and effects properties, as specified in laws such as the US Federal Insecticides Fungicides and Rodenticides Act (FIFRA). Studies are conducted according to relatively standardized designs. Particularly in this type of situation, it seems reasonable to develop default distributions for particular variables, as measured in particular, standardized studies. Default assumptions may relate to default distribution types, or default distribution parameters such as a coefficient of variation, skewness, or knrtosis. Default distributions may be evaluated in comparative studies that draw from multiple literature sources. Databases of pesticide fate and effects properties, such as those maintained by the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs, may be useful for such comparative analyses. 

A fitted distribution should be evaluated using graphical methods as well as statistical goodness-of-flt (GoF) tests. Appropriate procedures are available in texts on environmental statistics and risk assessment (e.g., Gilbert 1987 Helsel and Hirsch 1992 Millard and Neerchal 2000). It is suggested that USEPA (1998) be consulted regarding a number of practical considerations. 

---