Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288:reg:12:p3
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 12 (pt 3/4)
Character Range: 1246984–1250359

instrument has expired or otherwise ceased to have effect in accordance with a provision of the instrument, details of the provision are set out in the endnotes.

  Page

1 Introduction
2 EIL derivation methodology
2.1 Overview of the EIL derivation methodology
2.2 Levels of protection
2.2.1 Levels of protection for specific land uses
2.2.1.1 National parks and areas with high ecological value
2.2.1.2 Urban residential and public open space
2.2.1.3 Commercial and industrial land
2.2.1.4 Agricultural land
2.3 Determining the most important exposure pathways
2.3.1 Exposure pathway assessment for organic
contaminants
2.3.1.1 Half-life
2.3.1.2 Henry's law constant
2.3.1.3 Octanol-water partition
2.3.1.4 Overview of the main exposure pathways for
organic contaminants
2.3.2 Exposure pathway assessment for inorganic
contaminants
2.3.2.1 Biomagnification
2.3.2.2 Henry's law constant
2.3.2.3 Overview of main exposure pathways for inorganic
contaminants
2.4 Derivation of EIL values
2.4.1 Collation and screening of data
2.4.1.1 Toxicity data collation
2.4.1.2 Quantitative structureactivity relationships
2.4.1.3 Quantitative activityactivity relationships
2.4.1.4 Equilibrium partitioning method
2.4.1.5 Screening and selection of toxicity data
2.4.2 Standardisation of the toxicity data
2.4.2.1 Measures of toxicity
2.4.2.2 Conversion from total to added concentrations
2.4.2.3 Duration of exposure
2.4.2.4 The use of toxicity data for endemic or overseas
species
2.4.3 Incorporation of an ageing and leaching factor
2.4.4 Comparison of available toxicity data to the minimum
data requirements
2.4.5 Calculation of the added contaminant limit using a
species sensitivity distribution approach
2.4.6 Normalisation of toxicity data to an Australian
reference soil
2.4.7 Calculation of the added contaminant level using
an assessment factor approach
2.4.8 Accounting for secondary poisoning and
biomagnification
2.4.9 Calculation of the ambient background
concentrations
2.4.9.1 Inorganic contaminants
2.4.9.2 Organic contaminants
2.4.10 Calculation of the EIL
2.4.11 The reliability of the EIL
2.4.12 Evaluation of the appropriateness of the
derived EILs
2.4.13 Strengths and limitations of EIL derivation
methodology
2.4.13.1 Strengths
2.4.13.2 Limitations
3 Technical notes on methods used in the
EIL derivation methodology
3.1 Methods to account for the effect of soil characteristics
on toxicity and bioavailability
3.1.1 Chemical estimates of bioavailability
3.1.2 Normalisation relationships
3.1.3 Normalisation of toxicity data to a reference soil
3.2 Methods to calculate soil quality guidelines
3.2.1 Species sensitivity distribution methods
3.2.2 How do SSD methods work?
3.2.2.1 Criticisms
3.2.2.2 Strengths and limitations
3.2.3 Assessment factor methods
3.2.3.1 Criticisms
3.2.3.2 Strengths and weaknesses
3.2.4 Geometric mean methodology of the US EPA
3.2.4.1 Strengths and limitations
3.2.5 Methods for calculating EILs
3.2.6 Secondary poisoning and biomagnification
3.2.7 Methods for accounting for secondary poisoning
3.2.8 Using biomagnification algorithms
3.2.9 Using a default biomagnification factor
3.2.10 Increasing the percentage of species to be protected
3.3 Determining ambient background concentrations
3.3.1 Inorganics
3.3.2 Background concentration models
3.3.3 Organics
4 Bibliography
5 Appendices
5.1 Appendix A: Review and