Hazard Assessment Computer System

Chemical Hazards Response Information System/Hazard Assessment Computer System (CHRIS/HACS) Developed by the Coast Guard, HACS is a computerized model of the CHRIS manuals. It is used by federal on scene coordinators during a chemical spill or response. 

Chemnet A mutual-aid network of chemical shippers and contractors CHEMTREC Chemical Transportation Emergency Center CHLOREP A mutual-aid group comprised of shippers and carriers of chlorine CHRIS/HACS Chemical Hazards Response Information System/Hazard Assessment Computer System... 

Harding, R. V., Pamarouskis, M. C. and Potts, R. G. (1978). The development and implementation of the hazard assessment computer system (HACS). Proc. Conf. Control Hazardous Mater. Spills 1978 pp. 51-59. 

Spicer, T. O., and J. A. Havens. 1986. Development of a Heavier-than-Air Dispersion Model for the US Coast Guard Hazard Assessment Computer System, in Heavy Gas and Risk Assessment HI, ed. S. Hartwig, Battelle Institute, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, pp. 73-121. 

Chemical Hazards Resporise Information System (CHRIS), provid ing hazardous material information in a four-volume manual, the Haz ard Assessment Computer System (HACS), and the National Response Center (NRC), a regional response team activator and information source... 

A fundamental objective of a computer system applied to automate a pharmaceutical GMP operation is to ensure the quality attributes of the drug product are upheld throughout the manufacturing process. It is therefore important that quality-critical parameters are determined and approved early in the validation life cycle. The exercise should be undertaken to a written procedure with base information from the master product/production record file examined and quality-critical parameter values and limits documented and approved for the process and its operation. In addition, the process and instrument diagrams (P IDs) should be reviewed to confirm the measurement and control components that have a direct impact on the quality-critical parameters and data. This exercise should be carried out by an assessment team made up of user representatives with detailed knowledge of both the computer system application and process, and with responsibility for product quality, system operational use, maintenance, and project implementation. This exercise may be conducted as part of an initial hazard and operability study (HAZOP) and needs to confirm the quality-related critical parameters for use in (or referenced by) the computer control system URS. 

When the REACH system is introduced, it is possible that additional human health and ecotox-icological information could be required for up to 30,000 existing chemicals, which are currently marketed in volumes greater than 1 t/year (t.p.a.). Therefore, QSAR and other computer-based methods for predicting toxicity are expected to play an increasingly important role, not only for the priority setting of chemicals that need further assessment, but also for hazard assessment purposes. As yet no formal procedures have been put in place for the use of QSAR in the REACH system. 

Each hazard is assessed in terms of whether it is suitably controlled, either directly by the computer systems affected or by a backup mechanism or by another computer system. The use... 

Finally, one of the most sophisticated computer simulation programs for hazard assessment is the property of the DoE and is located in California at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory s National Atmospheric Release and Advisory Center (NARAC). The Center s primary responsibility involves predicting the dispersion of accidentally released radioactive materials, but the system can address a variety of other substances as well. 

Various adaptations of hazard study techniques have been developed by end user companies to deal with the need to include the assessment of computer systems within the framework of hazard studies. The system developed by ICI in the early 1990s has been applied within AECI to a limited extent and a brief outline is given here. A similar system is described in the UK Defence Standard 00-58. Part 2 of the same standard goes into greater detail and is also available as a free download from www.defstan.mod.uk. 

The assessment of the contribution of a product to the fire severity and the resulting hazard to people and property combines appropriate product flammabihty data, descriptions of the building and occupants, and computer software that includes the dynamics and chemistry of fires. This type of assessment offers benefits not available from stand-alone test methods quantitative appraisal of the incremental impact on fire safety of changes in a product appraisal of the use of a given material in a number of products and appraisal of the differing impacts of a product in different buildings and occupancies. One method, HAZARD I (11), has been used to determine that several commonly used fire-retardant—polymer systems reduced the overall fire hazard compared to similar nonfire retarded formulations (12). 

The USEPA estimates that over 6000 facilities are currently operated as treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs) regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which assigns the responsibility of corrective action to facility owners and operators and authorizes the USEPA to oversee corrective actions. Unlike the Superfund, RCRA responsibility is delegated to states. The USEPA and authorized states have completed initial assessment of potential environmental contamination at over 70% of RCRA facilities, as required by statute to address corrective action. Environmental contamination at many RCRA facilities is expected to be less severe than at Superfund sites however, the total number of RCRA facilities exceeds the number of Superfund sites. The USEPA developed a computer-based system known as the RCRA National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS) to help establish priorities for corrective action activities. Among the factors considered in NCAPS are the history of hazardous waste releases, the likelihood of human and environmental exposure, and the type and quantity of waste handle at the facility. 

The difference between a DCS, where the HMI is usually an integral part of the system, and a PLC, which usually contains a controller and an HMI, is that separate software and hardware design specifications exist, and there will be separate build and Module Testing. Additionally, Integration Tests must take place to ensure that the individual systems communicate and interact in the correct manner. Any assessment of the potential hazards of such a system, such as a Computer HAZard and OPerabiUty (CHAZOP) smdy, should cover the total system. 

CHAZOP Computer HAZard and OPerability study to assess the threats and their control between Automation Systems, their users and operational environments, and the manufacturing process. CHAZOP studies for IT systems concenti ate on the threats and then-controls affecting data integrity. [Defined for this book.]... 

---