DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating Soil Contamination

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating Soil Contamination )1il.lf SDMS DocID 463464 Biologiciil Rcporl'WC) July I'/X) Superfund Records Center SITE: PiV^ ^SrcgZt— BREAK: t>^>- OlliER: ML^M^M Evaluating Soil Contamination bv W. Nelson Bcvcr U.S. Department ofthe Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, DC 20240 Preface This compilation is designed to help contaminant specialists evaluate environmental hazards from contaminants in soil and in similar materials, such as dredged material. This should be used with the contaminant index. Included in this compilation arc regulatory criteria, opinions, citations, brief descriptions of scientific articles, and miscellaneous information that might be useful in making risk assessments of soil contaminants. The material was compiled because little information is available to assist field personnel who must evaluate soil contamination at local sites. Many of the guidelines that have been developed arc not known outside specialized fields of regulation and cannot be found through a literature search. In contrast, many volumes have been published that review contaminants in general or contaminants in aquatic systems. My intent is to provide access to hard-to-obtain material that might be helpful in making sound decisions. Thus, this report includes information on what those in related fields consider hazardous, and includes cil;itions to articles that might be useful in making a risk assessment for wildlife. Many seemingly different environmental problems actually have much in common. For example, whether sediments are to be dredged and disposed of on land, sewage sludge is to be applied to farmland, or a hazardous waste site is to be cleaned up, all involve estimating contaminant concentrations that should be considered safe in each situation. Although the concentration considered safe iepends on the particular situation, risk assessments of different habitats are likely to share common lines of reasoning. Researchers disagree over how best to evaluate hazards from soil contaminants. Some researchers deny the value of using concentrations at all and prefer bioassays; others stress the inadequacy of the data available to derive guidelines and use background concentrations and their best judgment for selecting a \ aluc; yet others' swear by risk assessment. I made no attempt to judge the material presented or to endorse particular approaches. The choice is left entirely lo the reader. The descriptions included are brief. When describing limitations on applying sludge to land, for example, I included only information on the total cumulative amounts that may be applied to soil, since they seemed most relevant. Sludge regulations include a great deal more information, such as how and where sludge may be applied, limits on nitrogen, and so on. For each published reference only enough information is included lo indicate its relevance to the topic; all ofthe howevers, contrariwises, and admonitions about leaping io hasty conclusions are left out. If data arc to be cited, the reader should go to the original source to be sure that the intent of the author is understood. Some of the information included is from drafts. Unfortunately, many of the criteria did not have accompanying explanations of how they were derived, and this limits their application to other situations. Concentrations in soil should be assumed lobe expressed as dry weight, unless stated otherwise. Most ofthe regulations limiting the addition of environmental contaminants with sludge have been expressed as maximum kilograms per hectare, but they may still be helpful for evaluating concentrations; if we assume that contaminants are mixed into a plow layer (about 15 cm) that weighs 2,(X)0,(X)0 kg/ha, then 2 kg/ha of a contaminant would be equivalent to 1 ppm in that plow layer. The first 10 entries are from various countries and arc standards or recommended guidelines for evaluating contaminated soil. Entry 2, from the Netherlands, is particularly useful if the reader does not require that the criteria be supported with a risk assessment, because this entry includes most of the contaminants generally considered hazardous. Entry 10, from the Soviet Union, includes maximum allowable concentrations for even more chemicals, but regrettably, 1 did not learn anything about the reasoning behind their derivation. Six of the entries come from an unpublished report by G. Mark Richardson, entitled "Inventory of Cleanup Criteria and Methods to Select Criteria," prepared for the Committee on Industrial Site Decommissioning, Environment Canada, in March 1987. This is an excellent reference for evaluating hazardous waste sites. Federal, State, and European Economic Community guidelines limiting the maximum cumulative amounts of contaminants thai may be added to soil with sewage sludge are found in entries 11-23. These are followed by estimates of contaminants in sewage sludges (entries 24 and 25). Entry 26 provides estimates of elemental concentrations of surficial materials, and entries 27-29 list guidelines for evaluating contaminants in sediments. The rest ofthe entries are brief descriptions of published scientific articles that might be useful in making risk a.ssessments. Articles on the accumulation of contaminants by earthworms are emphasized, because earthworms are a natural bridge for contaminants between soil and many wildlife species. Many articles have been published on the accumulation of elements by earthworms, and several reviews are available; consequently, this topic was treated only briefly in entry 51. Entry 56 lists recommended references on earthworm biology. Other entries include citations to articles on the toxicity of metals in litter to woodlice (entry 58), human health hazards from soil lead and TCDD (entries59-61), and the ingestion of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) from soil by grazing animals (entry 62). I thank T. J. Milkr and D. Schultz for their reviews, and T. Kubiak for sending much useful material. Contents Page Preface iii Contaminant Index v Abstract 1 Soil Contamination Criteria 1 Japan 1 Netherlands 1 Canada 3 United States 5 Soviet Union 6 Sewage Sludge 8 Guidelines for Limiting Additions i.>f Contaminants 8 Sewage Sludge Analyses . 14 Elemental Concentrations in Surficial Materials 15 Sediment Guidelines 16 Selected Citations on Earthworms 18 Contaminants in Earthworms 18 Elements in Earthworms 22 General Earthworm Biology 24 Additional Literature 25 Metal Toxicity in Soil Litter 25 Human Health Hazards 25 PCB Ingestion by Grazing Animals 25 Contaminant Index Contaminant Entrv number Abate 10 Acetaldehyde 10 Aldicarb 49 Aldrin 24,28,36,39,54 Aluminum 18,26 Amiben 10 Ammonia 27 Anthanlhrene 42 Anthracene 2,42 Antimony 10.14 Arsenic 1,2,5,9,10,14,18,24-25,27-29 Atrazinc 10 Barium 2,9,26-28 Basudin -.0 Bay 92114 • ;9 Bayer 37289 52 Bcnzanthracene 7,24,42 Benzene 2,3,8,10,24 BenzoHuoranthene 24,42 BcnzoHuorene 42 Benzoperylene 42 • Benzophenanthrcne 7 Benzojayrene 2,3,10,24,42 Beryllium 9,18,24-26 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3,24 Boron 25,26 Bromine 2 Bromophos 10 Bufencarb 49 Butylale 10 Bux 52 Cadmium 1,2,5,6,7,9,11,13-25,27-29,41,45, 46,51,56,58 Calcium 25,26 Carbaryl 10,44,52 Carbofuran 9,52 Carbon tetrachloride 24 Carbophos 10 Cerium 26 CGA 12223 49 Chloramp 10 Chlordane 24.25,28,36,49 Chloroacctamine 44 Chlorobenzene 2,24 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 44 Chloroform 24 Chlorophenol 2 Chlorophos 10 Chlorpyrifos 49 Chromium 2,5,6,9,10,14,18,21,24-29,56 Chrysene 3,7,24,42 Cobalt 2,6,18,26 Copper 1,2,5,6,9,10,13-29,31,41,45,56,58 Contaminant Entry number Cresols 3 Cumene 10 Cyanide 2,24,27 Cyanox 10 Cycloate 10 Cyclohexane 2 2,4-D 10 2,4-D, ammonium salt 10 Dacthal 10 Dalapon Sodium 10 Dasanit 49,52 DDT 10,24,28,30,32,33,35,36,52.54,55 Dcsmetryn 10 Diazinon 49 Dibenzanthr.iccne 7,42 Dibenzopyr';ne 7,42 Dicamba 10 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 24 1,2-Dichloroethane 24 2,4-Dichlorophenol 10 1,2 Dichloropropane 44 Dichlorvos 10 Dieldrin 24,28,32,33,36,38,39,48,53,54 Dihydrohcptachlor 10 Dimethoatc 10 Dimethylbenzanthraccne 7 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrenc 42 Dimethyl phthalate 44 Dinobuton 10 1,4-Dioxane 3 Dioxin 18,28,43,47,61 Disulfoton 49 Diuron 10 Dursban 52 Dyfonate 49 Endosulfon 10 Endrin 24,28,36,52 Eptam 10 Etaphos 10 Ethoprop 49 Ethylbenzene 2,8 Ethylene dibromide 3 Fenuron 10 Fluoranthene 2,42 Fluorene 44 Fluorine 2,18 Folpet 10 Formaldehyde 10 Gallium 26 Gardona 10 Gasoline 2 Glyphosate 10 Heptachlor 10,24,28,32,36,50 Herban 10 VI Contaminant Entrv number Hcterophos 10 Hexachlorobenzene 7,24 Hexachlorobutadiene 10,24 Hcxachlorocyclohcxanc 10 Indcnopyrcnc 7,42 Iron 25-27 Kclthane 10 Landrin 49 Lanthanum 26 ' Uad 1,2,4-7,9,10,12-29,31,41,45,56,58-60 Lenacil 10 Lindane 10,24,28,54 Linuron 10 Magnesium 25,26 Manganese 10,14,18,25-27 Mercury 1,2,5,9,10,21,23-25,27-29.55 Melathione 10 Methaphos 10 3-MethylchoIanthrene 42 Methylene chloride 24 Methyl ethyl ketone 3 Methomyl 49 Mineral oils 2 Molybdenum 2,5,7,18,26 Monolinuron 10 Monuron 10 Napththalene 2,3 Ncmacur 49 Ncodymium 26 Neptunium 26 Nickel 2,5,6,9,10,13-29,45,56 Nitrates 10 Nilrofor , 10 Nitrogen 5,10,25,29 4-Nilrophenol 44 n-Nitrosodiphcnylamine 24,44 Oil 5,8,9,28,29 Oxamyl 49 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) 2,7,42 PCB's 2,11,16.18,24,25,27-29,34,40.42,62 Pcbulaie 10 Pentachlorophenol 24,37 Permcthrin 10 Pcrylene 42 Petroleum 5,8,9.28,29 Phenanthrene 2,3,24,42 Phcnazon 10 Phenols 2,24,44 Phcnthoate 10 Phorate 49 Phosalone 10,49 Phosphorus 25-27,29 Phosphorus pcntoxide 10 Phthalate 3,24,44 Contaminant Entrv number Phlhalophos 10, l'ick)ram 10 ririmicarb 10 Pirimiphos-nKlhyi 10 Polychlorinated bij-ihcnyls
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vision 2030 Maharashtra
    Overview of the State ………………………………………………………….. 01 Demographic Profile ……………………………………………………………….. 03 State Economy ………………………………………………………………………. 04 Key Challenges ……………………………………………………………………... 08 Way forward ……………………………………………………………………. 13 Core five pillars (themes) of Vision 2030 …………………………………………… 15 Vision Statement & Components …………………………………………... 17 Agriculture & Allied activities Current Scenario …………………………………………………………………… 21 Vision Elements and Targets ………………………………………………………. 26 Action Points ………………………………………………………………………. 30 Industry & Services Current Scenario ……………………………………………………………………. 47 Vision Elements and Targets ……………………………………………………….. 50 Action Points ……………………………………………………………………... 52 Infrastructure Current Scenario ………………………………………………………………….. 62 Vision Elements and Targets ……………………………………………………... 65 Action Points ………………………………………………………………………. 68 Social Sectors Current Scenario ..…………………………………………………………………. 74 Vision Elements and Targets ……………………………………………………… 84 Action Points ……………………………………………………………………… 92 Governance Current Scenario …………………………………………………………………… 113 Vision Elements and Targets ……………………………………………………… 117 Action Points ……………………………………………………………………… 123 Environment Current Scenario …………………………………………………………………… 128 Vision Elements and Targets ……………………………………………………… 129 Action Points ……………………………………………………………………… 130 Implementation Strategy……………………………………………………….. 131 OVERVIEW OF THE STATE Maharashtra occupies the western and central part of the country and has a long coastline stretching nearly 720 km along the Arabian Sea. The
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Pathways
    Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Pathways Guidance for ATSDR’s Division of Community Health Investigations October 31, 2016 Contents Acronym List ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 What are the potential health risks from the vapor intrusion pathway? ............................................................................... 2 When should a vapor intrusion pathway be evaluated? ........................................................................................................ 3 Why is it so difficult to assess the public health hazard posed by the vapor intrusion pathway? .......................................... 3 What is the best approach for a public health evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway? ................................................. 5 Public health evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Vapor intrusion evaluation process outline ............................................................................................................................ 8 References… …......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Contamination and Human Health: a Major Challenge For
    Soil contamination and human health : A major challenge for global soil security Florence Carre, Julien Caudeville, Roseline Bonnard, Valérie Bert, Pierre Boucard, Martine Ramel To cite this version: Florence Carre, Julien Caudeville, Roseline Bonnard, Valérie Bert, Pierre Boucard, et al.. Soil con- tamination and human health : A major challenge for global soil security. Global Soil Security Sympo- sium, May 2015, College Station, United States. pp.275-295, 10.1007/978-3-319-43394-3_25. ineris- 01864711 HAL Id: ineris-01864711 https://hal-ineris.archives-ouvertes.fr/ineris-01864711 Submitted on 30 Aug 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Human Health as another major challenge of Global Soil Security Florence Carré, Julien Caudeville, Roseline Bonnard, Valérie Bert, Pierre Boucard, Martine Ramel Abstract This chapter aimed to demonstrate, by several illustrated examples, that Human Health should be considered as another major challenge of global soil security by emphasizing the fact that (a) soil contamination is a worldwide issue, estimations can be done based on local contamination but the extent and content of diffuse contamination is largely unknown; (b) although soil is able to store, filter and reduce contamination, it can also transform and make accessible soil contaminants and their metabolites, contributing then to human health impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Tillage and Soil Ecology: Partners for Sustainable Agriculture
    Soil & Tillage Research 111 (2010) 33–40 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Soil & Tillage Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still Review Tillage and soil ecology: Partners for sustainable agriculture Jean Roger-Estrade a,b,*, Christel Anger b, Michel Bertrand b, Guy Richard c a AgroParisTech, UMR 211 INRA/AgroParisTech., Thiverval-Grignon, 78850, France b INRA, UMR 211 INRA/AgroParisTech. Thiverval-Grignon, 78850, France c INRA, UR 0272 Science du sol, Centre de recherche d’Orle´ans, Orle´ans, 45075, France ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Much of the biodiversity of agroecosystems lies in the soil. The functions performed by soil biota have Tillage major direct and indirect effects on crop growth and quality, soil and residue-borne pests, diseases Soil ecology incidence, the quality of nutrient cycling and water transfer, and, thus, on the sustainability of crop Agroecosystems management systems. Farmers use tillage, consciously or inadvertently, to manage soil biodiversity. Soil biota Given the importance of soil biota, one of the key challenges in tillage research is understanding and No tillage Plowing predicting the effects of tillage on soil ecology, not only for assessments of the impact of tillage on soil organisms and functions, but also for the design of tillage systems to make the best use of soil biodiversity, particularly for crop protection. In this paper, we first address the complexity of soil ecosystems, the descriptions of which vary between studies, in terms of the size of organisms, the structure of food webs and functions. We then examine the impact of tillage on various groups of soil biota, outlining, through examples, the crucial effects of tillage on population dynamics and species diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Use of Soils and Water: the Role of Environmental Land Use Conflicts
    sustainability Editorial Sustainable Use of Soils and Water: The Role of Environmental Land Use Conflicts Fernando A. L. Pacheco CQVR – Chemistry Research Centre, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Quinta de Prados Ap. 1013, Vila Real 5001-801, Portugal; [email protected] Received: 3 February 2020; Accepted: 4 February 2020; Published: 6 February 2020 Abstract: Sustainability is a utopia of societies, that could be achieved by a harmonious balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, including the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. The present Special Issue addresses a multiplicity of realities that confirm a deviation from this utopia in the real world, as well as the concerns of researchers. These scholars point to measures that could help lead the damaged environment to a better status. The studies were focused on sustainable use of soils and water, as well as on land use or occupation changes that can negatively affect the quality of those resources. Some other studies attempt to assess (un)sustainability in specific regions through holistic approaches, like the land carrying capacity, the green gross domestic product or the eco-security models. Overall, the special issue provides a panoramic view of competing interests for land and the consequences for the environment derived therefrom. Keywords: water resources; soil; land use change; conflicts; environmental degradation; sustainability Competition for land is a worldwide problem affecting developed as well as developing countries, because the economic growth of activity sectors often requires the expansion of occupied land, sometimes to places that overlap different sectors. Besides the social tension and conflicts eventually caused by the competing interests for land, the environmental problems they can trigger and sustain cannot be overlooked.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision
    ES/ER/TM-126/R2 Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision This document has been approved by the East Tennessee Technology Park Technical Information Office for release to the public. Date: ES/ER/TM-126/R2 Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision R. A. Efroymson M. E. Will G. W. Suter II Date Issued—November 1997 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management under budget and reporting code EW 20 LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. managing the Environmental Management Activities at the East Tennessee Technology Park Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Oak Ridge National Laboratory Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PREFACE This report presents a standard method for deriving benchmarks for the purpose of “contaminant screening,” performed by comparing measured ambient concentrations of chemicals. The work was performed under Work Breakdown Structure 1.4.12.2.3.04.07.02 (Activity Data Sheet 8304). In addition, this report presents sets of data concerning the effects of chemicals in soil on invertebrates and soil microbial processes, benchmarks for chemicals potentially associated with United States Department of Energy sites, and literature describing the experiments from which data were drawn for benchmark derivation. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Carla Gunderson and Art Stewart for their helpful reviews of the document. In addition, the authors would like to thank Christopher Evans and Alexander Wooten for conducting part of the literature review.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Fauna: Key to New Carbon Models Authors
    SOIL Discuss., doi:10.5194/soil-2016-19, 2016 Manuscript under review for journal SOIL Published: 14 April 2016 c Author(s) 2016. CC-BY 3.0 License. 1 1 2 Soil fauna: key to new carbon models 3 4 Authors 5 6 Juliane Filser1*, Jack H. Faber2, Alexei V. Tiunov3, Lijbert Brussaard4, Jan Frouz5, 7 Gerlinde De Deyn4, Alexei V. Uvarov3, Matty P. Berg6, Patrick Lavelle7, Michel Loreau8, 8 Diana H. Wall9, Pascal Querner10, Herman Eijsackers11, Juan José Jiménez12 9 10 1Center for Environmental Research and Sustainable Technolgy, University of Bremen, General and Theoretical 11 Ecology, Leobener Str. – UFT, D-28359 Bremen, Germany. 12 email: [email protected] 13 * Corresponding author 14 15 2Alterra, Wageningen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 16 email: [email protected] 17 3Laboratory of Soil Zoology, Institute of Ecology & Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky prospekt 33, 18 119071 Moscow, Russia 19 email: [email protected] 20 email: [email protected] 21 4Dept. of Soil Quality, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands 22 email: [email protected] 23 email: [email protected] 24 5Institute for Environmental Studies, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Benátská 2, 128 43 Praha 2, 25 Czech Republic 26 email: [email protected] 27 6Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ecological Science, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The 28 Netherlands 29 email: [email protected] 30 7Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Centre IRD Ile de France, 32, rue H. Varagnat, 93143 Bondy Cedex, France 31 email: [email protected] 32 8Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Station d'Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale, UMR 5321 CNRS & 33 Université Paul Sabatier, 2, route du CNRS, 09200 Moulis, France 34 email: [email protected] 35 9School of Global Environmental Sustainability & Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Fauna: Key to New Carbon Models
    SOIL, 2, 565–582, 2016 www.soil-journal.net/2/565/2016/ doi:10.5194/soil-2-565-2016 SOIL © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Soil fauna: key to new carbon models Juliane Filser1, Jack H. Faber2, Alexei V. Tiunov3, Lijbert Brussaard4, Jan Frouz5, Gerlinde De Deyn4, Alexei V. Uvarov3, Matty P. Berg6, Patrick Lavelle7, Michel Loreau8, Diana H. Wall9, Pascal Querner10, Herman Eijsackers11, and Juan José Jiménez12 1Center for Environmental Research and Sustainable Technology, University of Bremen, General and Theoretical Ecology, Leobener Str. – UFT, 28359 Bremen, Germany 2Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands 3Laboratory of Soil Zoology, Institute of Ecology & Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky prospekt 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia 4Dept. of Soil Quality, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands 5Institute for Environmental Studies, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Benátská 2, 128 43 Praha 2, Czech Republic 6Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ecological Science, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands 7Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Centre IRD Ile de France, 32, rue H. Varagnat, 93143 Bondy CEDEX, France 8Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Station d’Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale, UMR5321 – CNRS & Université Paul Sabatier, 2, route du CNRS, 09200 Moulis, France 9School of Global Environmental Sustainability & Dept. Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1036, USA 10University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Department of Integrated Biology and Biodiversity Research, Institute of Zoology, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria 11Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from the Current Practices in India
    LEADERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE Learning from the current practices in India December 2018 Tata Institute of Social Sciences Indian Institute for Human Settlements December 2018 Authors Jacquleen Joseph (Principal Investigator), Garima Jain (Principal Investigator), Suchita Awasthi (Documentation Officer), Theimneizho Gangte (Senior Research Officer), Sriram A (Research Officer), Gargi Sen (Senior Research Officer), Teja Malladi (Senior Research Officer), Vineetha Nalla (Research Officer). Contributing Authors Zubin Mulla (Leadership Consultant), Mohammed Irshad (Co-Principal Investigator), Debasmita Majumder (Senior Research Officer), Soumitra Peshave (Research Officer), Girinathreddy Munagala (Research Officer), Swati Pillai (Research Officer), G. Dhanapal (Senior Research Officer), Asma N (Senior Research Officer), Nishtha Vadehra (Research Officer) Media Team Yashodhara Udupa, Zohrab Reys Gamat, Sandeep Viswanath, Amit Mahanti (IIHS Media Lab) Reviewers Amir Bazaz (IIHS Lead - Practice) Editing Support Rekha Raghunathan, Archita Suryanarayanan (IIHS Word Lab) Report and Graphic Design MS Vikrant, Nawaz Khan (IIHS Design Lab) Contents Preface 5 Executive Summary 9 1. Background for the research 11 1.1 Role of Actors 11 1.2 Need for Collaborative Effort 12 1.3 Operational definitions of key concepts 13 Leadership 13 Disasters 15 Disaster Resilience 17 2. Objective of the study 19 3. Methodology and Theoretical Framework 20 3.1 Methodology 20 3.2 Process and Tools of Data Collection and Analysis 21 3.3 Theoretical framework 26 4. Findings from the Secondary Case Study Database 30 4.1 Summary overview of Disaster Resilience Initiatives documented 30 4.2 Regional Analysis of Disaster Resilience Initiatives in India 34 5. Findings from the Primary Case Studies 50 5.1 Descriptive Summary of Primary Case Studies 50 5.2 Primary Case Studies - A Brief Description 56 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Hexachlorobenzene UNITED NATIONS
    UNITED NATIONS RC UNEP/FAO/RC/CRC.5/10/Add.1 Distr.: General 2 December 2008 United Nations English only Environment Programme Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Chemical Review Committee Fifth meeting Rome, 23–27 March 2009 Item 4 (b) (vii) of the provisional agenda* Listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention: review of notifications of final regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict a chemical: hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobenzene Note by the Secretariat Addendum Supporting documentation provided by Canada The Secretariat has the honour to provide, in the annex to the present note, documentation received from Canada to support its notification of final regulatory action on hexachlorobenzene as an industrial chemical. * UNEP/FAO/RC/CRC.5/1. K0842870 161208 For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies. UNEP/FAO/RC/CRC.5/10/Add.1 Annex • Hexachlorobenzene: Priority Substances List Assessment Report, Environment Canada, Health Canada. • Environmental Assessments of Priority Substances Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Guidance Manual, Version 1.0 — March 1997. Environment Canada. • SOR/2005-41; CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999; Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005, Canada Government Gazette. 2 Canadian
    [Show full text]
  • Version, Februari 4Th, 2000 Dutch Target and Intervention
    www.esdat.net Esdat Environmental Database Management Software +61 2 9232 8080 Version, februari 4th, 2000 Dutch Target and Intervention Values, 2000 (the New Dutch List) ANNEXES Circular on target values and intervention values for soil remediation Four annexes belong to this circular: · annex A deals with the target values, the soil remediation intervention values and the indicative levels for serious contamination; · annex B contains the measurement and analysis regulations for soil/sediment and groundwater for the substances listed in annex A; · annex C gives the data required for determining the remediation urgency and the remediation deadline for the substances in part A; · annex D provides a guideline for dealing with substances for which there are no standards. Circular on target values and intervention values for soil remediation page 1 of 51 www.esdat.net Esdat Environmental Database Management Software +61 2 9232 8080 ANNEX A: TARGET VALUES, SOIL REMEDIATION INTERVENTION VALUES AND INDICATIVE LEVELS FOR SERIOUS CONTAMINATION Introduction Soil remediation policy uses soil remediation intervention values, indicative levels for serious contamination and target values. These three types of standards are dealt with below. The point of departure in setting standards for environmental policy as a whole is the risks involved. This strategy is set forth in the document Premises for Risk Management [Omgaan met risico’s]. The risk-based approach in environmental policy (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), Lower House of Parliament, parliamentary proceedings 1988-1989, 21 137, no. 5). The intervention values and the accompanying target values for soil/sediment and groundwater are given in table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Pentachlorophenol Report Response to PSB Docket #8310 Filed April 26, 2016 Pentachlorophenol Workgroup Participants
    Pentachlorophenol Report Response to PSB Docket #8310 Filed April 26, 2016 Pentachlorophenol Workgroup Participants Chuck Schwer: Group Facilitator, Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Ashley Desmond: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), Sites Michael B. Smith Management Section Sarah Vose: Department of Health (VDH) Bill Jordan: Public Service Department (PSD) Cary Giguere: Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets (AAFM) Jeff Comstock Linda Boccuzzo Deb Gaynor: Town of Monkton Wendy Sue Harper Kim Greenwood: Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) Tim Upton: Green Mountain Power (GMP) Tim Follensbee: Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) Scott Allocca: Fairpoint Communications Jeff Austin Dan Weston: Washington Electric Cooperative (WEC) Scott Martino Jeff Miller: Treated Wood Council (TWC) Roger Donegan: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Jeffrey Wimette Local 300 ii Acronyms AAFM Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets (Vermont) ACZA Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate ANR Agency of Natural Resources (Vermont) ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (federal) AWPA American Wood Protection Association BMP Best Management Practices BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes CCA Chromated copper arsenate CFR Code of Federal Register CIS Consumer Information Sheet CuNap Copper napthenate FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act g/L grams per liter GHS Global Harmonization System GIDMO Gravitational induced Downward Migration of Oil HCB hexachlorobenzene HHE Health hazard evaluation IBEW International
    [Show full text]