Final environmental impact statement for the offshore platform hazardous waste incineration facility : prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Response Support Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, and Marine Protection Branch, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

"September 1982."

Environmental quality standards to protect identified uses of controlled waters: salmonid fisheries, cyprinid fisheries, migratory fisheries, commercial harvesting of marine fish for public consumption, commercial harvesting of shellfish for for public consumption

This report considers the development of environmental quality standards (EQSs) for the salmonid fishery, cyprinid fishery, migratory fishery, commercial harvesting of marine fish for public consumption and commercial harvesting of shellfish for public consumption uses of controlled surface waters. Previous reports have been used to identify those parameters necessary for the maintenance of these five uses. Each water use is considered in a separate section within which identified parameters are discussed and standards proposed, a summary of the proposed standards is presented at the beginning of the relevant section. For salmonid, cyprinid and migratory fisheries, EQSs for substances in water have been proposed for the protection of these fisheries. For the commercial harvesting of marine fish and shellfish for public consumption uses 'Warning Levels' of substances in waters have been proposed. These 'Warning Levels' have been proposed by considering data on bioaccumulation and food standards and aim to prevent acceptable intake values and concentrations in fish/shellfish flesh exceeding statutory or recommended levels. For the commercial harvesting of marine fish for public consumption it has been concluded that the current EQSs for most List II substances for the protection of salt water life should be adequately stringent to protect this use, however for the commercial harvesting of shellfish for public consumption, these List II EQSs do not appear adequate to protect this use and more stringent 'Warning Levels' have been proposed. For all five uses considered in this report there has been found to be limited information on a number of the parameters considered and in general for indigenous species, this has been found to be especially so when considering migratory fisheries and the commercial harvesting of marine fish and shellfish.

Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Phenol in Water

This is the Proposed Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for Phenol in Water prepared for the National Rivers Authority, and published by the Environment Agency in 1995. The report reviews the properties and uses of phenol, its fate, behaviour and reported concentrations in the environment and critically assesses the available data on its toxicity and bioaccumulation. The information is used to derive EQSs for the protection of fresh and saltwater life and for the abstraction of water to potable supply. Phenol is widely used as a chemical intermediate and the main sources for phenol in the environment are of anthropogenic origin. Phenol may also be formed during natural decomposition of organic material. The persistence of phenol in the aquatic environment is low with biodegradation being the main degradation process (half-lives of hours to days). Phenol is moderately toxic to aquatic organisms and its potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms is low.

Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Nonylphenol in Water

This is the Proposed Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for Nonylphenol in Water produced by the Environment Agency in 1997. The report reviews the properties and uses of Nonylphenol, its fate, behaviour and reported concentrations in the environment, and critically assesses available data on its toxicity and bioaccumulation. The information is used to derive EQSs for the protection of fresh and saltwater life as well as for water abstracted to potable supply.Nonylphenol (NP) is used extensively in the production of other substances such as non-ionic ethoxylate surfactants. It is through the incomplete anaerobic biodegradation of these surfactants that most nonylphenol reaches the aquatic environment in effluents, e.g. from sewage treatment works and certain manufacturing operations. It was explicitly stated by the Environment Agency that the EQS was to be derived for NP and not Nonylphenol ethoxylates. However, since NP is unlikely to be present in the aquatic environment in the absence of other nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE) degradation by-products, the toxicity, fate and behaviour of some of these (i.e. nonylphenol mono- and diethoxylates (NP1EO and NP2EO), mono- and di-nonylphenoxy carboxylic acids (NP1EC and NP2EC) have also been considered in this report. In the aquatic environment and during sewage treatment, NPEs are rapidly degraded to NP under aerobic conditions. NP may then be either fully mineralised or may be adsorbed to sediments. Since NP cannot be biodegraded under anaerobic conditions it can accumulate in sediments to high concentrations.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency responsiveness summary for : Sugar Creek Impoundment : Section 401 water quality certification for the construction of a water supply reservoir for the city of Marion.

The city of Marion has applied to the Illinois EPA for Section 401 water quality certification to construct a 1,172 surface acre, raw water impoundment reservoir on Sugar Creek, southeast of Creal Springs, Williamson County, Illinois. This proposal and the impacts are described in the Final EIS, DSI, and DSII. The proposed project will involve the construction of a reservoir on Sugar Creek and the mitigation for affected wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States.

State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 208 water quality management planning program.

Cover and spine title: Water quality management plan.

The right to be green: using human rights law to achieve environmental protection

The relationship between the environment and human rights has long been recognised. It is now largely accepted that a ‘good’ environment is a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, and even the right to life. It has even been suggested that as humans we all possess a right to live in an environment of a certain standard, based on the intrinsic value of the natural world to all human beings. In this context much has been written regarding the important role that the environment plays in human lives. This paper looks at the flip-side of this discussion, and examines what human rights can do for the environment. It is argued that, while there are valid criticisms for linking environmental protection too strongly to human needs, there is nonetheless much to be gained from using human rights law as a framework to achieve environmental protection.

Environmental rights or a right to the environment? Exploring the nexus between human rights and environmental protection.

The importance of the environment to the fulfilment of human rights is widely accepted at international law. What is less well-accepted is the proposition that we, as humans, possess rights to the environment beyond what is necessary to support our basic human needs. The suggestion that a human right to a healthy environment may be emerging at international law raises a number of theoretical and practical challenges for human rights law, with such challenges coming from both within and outside the human rights discourse. It is argued that human rights law can make a positive contribution to environmental protection, but the precise nature of the connection between the environment and human rights warrants more critical analysis. This short paper considers the different ways that the environment is conceptualised in international human rights law and analyses the proposition that a right to a healthy environment is emerging. It identifies some of the challenges which would need to be overcome before such a right could be recognised, including those which draw on the disciplines of deep ecology and earth jurisprudence.

Revisiting the Australian code of banking practice: Is self-regulation still relevant for improving consumer protection standards?

The Code of Banking Practice is one of the oldest examples of consumer protection provided through self-regulation in the Australian financial services sector. However, since the Banking Code was first released in 1993, the volume of consumer protection legislation applying to banks has increased exponentially and parts of the Banking Code that once provided new consumer rights have now been largely superseded by legislation. In light of the increasingly complex set of laws and regulations that govern the relationship between banks and their consumer and small business customers it could be argued that the Banking Code has a limited future role. However, an analysis of the Banking Code shows that it adds to the consumer protection standards provided by legislation and can continue to facilitate improvements in the standards of subscribing banks and of other institutions in the financial services sector. Self-regulation and industry codes should continue to be part of the regulatory mix. Any regulatory changes that flow from the recent Financial System Inquiry should also facilitate and support the self-regulation role, but the government should also consider further changes to encourage improvements in industry codes and ensure that the implicit regulatory benefits that are provided, in part, because of the existence of industry codes, are made explicit and made available only to code subscribers.

Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Volume 1- Pinnipeds: Under Project V.6. Marine Mammals, of the US-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection

Some 25 to 30 yr ago, when we as students were beginning our respective careers and were developing for the first time our awareness of marine mammals in the waters separating western North America from eastern Asia, we had visions of eventually bridging the communication gap which existed between our two countries at that time. Each of us was anxious to obtain information on the distribution, biology, and ecological relations of "our" seals and walruses on "the other side," beyond our respective political boundari~s where we were not permitted to go to study them. We were concerned that the resource management practices on the other side of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, implemented in isolation, on a purely unilateral basis, might endanger the species which we had come to know and were striving to conserve. At once apparent to both of us was the need for free exchange of biological information between our two countries and, ultimately, joint management of our shared resources. In a small way, we and others made some initial efforts to generate that exchange by personal correspondence and through vocal interchange at the annual meetings of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. By the enabling Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection, reached between our two countries in 1972, our earlier visions at last came true. Since that time, within the framework of the Marine Mammal Project under Area V of that Agreement, we and our colleagues have forged a strong bond of professional accord and respect, in an atmosphere of free intercommunication and mutual understanding. The strength and utility of this arrangement from the beginning of our joint research are reflected in the reports contained in this, the first compendium of our work. The need for a series of such a compendia became apparent to us in 1976, and its implementation was agreed on by the regular meeting of the Project in La Jolla, Calif., in January 1977. Obviously, the preparation and publication of this first volume has been excessively delayed, in part by continuing political distrust between our governments but mainly by increasing demands placed on the time of the contributors. In this period of growing environmental concern in both countries, we and our colleagues have been totally immersed in other tasks and have experienced great difficulty in drawing together the works presented here. Much of the support for doing so was provided by the State of Alaska, through funding for Organized Research at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. For its ultimate completion in publishable form we wish to thank Helen Stockholm, Director of Publications, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, and her staff, especially Ruth Hand, and the numerous referees narned herein who gave willingly oftheir time to review each ofthe manuscripts critically and to provide a high measure of professionalism to the final product. (PDF file contains 110 pages.)