Hazard priorities

NSF. 1975. Research program on hazard priority ranking of manufactured chemicals (Chemicals 1-20) 9-A-1. NTIS PB-263161. 

Brown, S., Chan, F., Jones, J., Liu, D., McCalab, K., Mill, T., Supios, K., Schendel, D. (1975) Research Program on Hazard Priority Ranking of Manufactured Chemicals Phase II. Final Report Chemicals 1-19 and 21-40. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California. 

SOCOPSE is looking mostly at hazardous priority pollutants to provide guidelines and decision support tools for their management at river basin scale. Its activities include material flow analysis, a series of detailed substances reports, identification of measures and management options, and application to fonr case studies. A strong interaction with industry research networks, authorities and NGOs is envisaged. 

Note Nonylphenol is harmful for aquatic ecosystems, and it has been declared as a hazardous priority substance under the Water Framework Directive, meaning that discharge to all water bodies should be stopped by 2015. ... 

Conservation. In an attempt to save paper, preventive conservation care deserves the highest priority, because it reduces the need for potentially hazardous, comphcated, and expensive treatments later (159—162). Problems which have a stmctural impact on long-term stabiUty of paper should be given a higher priority than problems which are merely cosmetic in nature. For example, infestation by insects, attracted by nutrients in paper, can cause irreparable loss of media and support. 

Health nd Safety Factors. Isophorone is considered moderately toxic by ingestion and skin contact. Some rat tumor formation evidence has been found (264), but no demonstration as a human carcinogen has been proven. Isophorone is considered an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) priority pollutant, and has a permissible acute toxicity concentration of 117, 000 ///L to protect freshwater aquatic life, 12, 900 ///L to protect saltwater aquatic life, and 5, 200 ///L to protect human life (265). Isophorone is mildly toxic by inhalation, but because of its low volatiUty it is not a serious vapor hazard. 

In addition, the DoE proposed EQSs in a 1991 consultation document for those pesticides on the Red List (the UK s original priority hazardous substances list). Although non-statutory, the Government is committed to the reduction of Red List Substances discharging to the North Sea and the NRA uses the standards to assess the effects of these substances on the environment and to derive consents for point source discharges of these compounds. Failures for agricultural pesticides are rare. 

TTie U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) (1) to determine priorities among releases, or threatened releases, from remediation sites. The HRS applies the appropriate consideration of each of the following site-specific characteristics of such facilities ... 

The EPA Hazardous Ranking System computes a numerical score for hazardous waste. If the score exceeds a predetermined value, the waste site is placed on the National Priority List (NPL) for Superfund cleanup. Discuss the pros and cons of such a ranking system. Describe a possible situation in which an air contaminant is controlled but the control system used transfers the contaminant problem to another medium, such as water or soil. 

Some sites are easy to elassify due to their inehision on the National Priorities List (NPL), state superfund, or other regulatory list. In other eases, debate ean and does arise to determine if a site should be treated as hazardous. Eor example, some sites eommonly referred to as brown fields have eontamination levels that are eonsidered low. Sometimes levels of eontamination are so low that exposure levels to workers do not reaeh aetion levels or permissible exposure levels (PEL). Some firms have ehosen to treat low-level eontaminated sites as if they fell under HAZWOPER requirements. This is a somewhat eonservative approaeh whieh provides a eomfort faetor for management and potentially responsible parties (PRP) or other entities. 

The Superfund database containing information on all aspects of hazardous waste sites from initial discover) to listing on the National Priorities List. Magnetic tapes are available quarterly from NTIS. Summaiy data under the Freedom of Information Act is available free by calling the Superfund Automated Phone System +1 800 775-5037. 

In the course of assessing your company s current PSM status, you and your team have almost certainly gained a clear sense of which facilities pose the greatest risk, whether by virtue of inherent process hazards, human factors, management systems, or a combination. As you set priorities for implementation you should closely review information gleaned from the assessment tasks. In addition, you should try to validate or flesh out your impressions through some more quantitative analysis that can help to identify priority facilities. 

In the immediate term, however, your plan may be most effective if you focus on the specific needs and priorities you have identified in the course of your work so far. If you clearly define the scope of your plan, and it directly addresses specific needs, your efforts will be far more successful than if you try to do all things for all people. Moreover, focusing on priority needs will almost certainly provide a sound basis for expansion or adaptation for example, procedures developed to address training for operators using high-hazaid materials at one facility (see Rextown vs. Effingham in Figure 5-2) should be readily adaptable to lower-hazard substances at another facility— far more so than the other way around. 

When deciding which facilities have priority, consider the inherent risk (which depends on the type and quantity of hazardous materials and the conditions under which they are processed and stored) and the extent to which these risks are controlled. 

Develop a comprehensive program to set priorities for cleaning up the w orst existing hazardous waste sites... 

The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Public law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepared toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61332). For prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal RegisternoiiCQS dated April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744) April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866) October 20, 1988 (53 FR 41280) October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619) October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067) October 17, 1991 (56 FR 52166) October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801) and February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486). Section 104(i)(3) of CERCLA, as amended, directs the Administrator of ATSDR to prepare a toxicological profile for each substance on the list. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the most serious hazardous waste sites in the nation. These sites make up the National Priorities List (NPL) and are the sites targeted for long-term federal cleanup activities. Methyl parathion has been found in at least 16 of the 1,585 current or former NPL sites. However, the total number of NPL sites evaluated for this substance is not known. As more sites are evaluated, the sites at which methyl parathion is found may increase. This information is important because exposure to this substance may harm you and because these sites may be sources of exposure. 

Populations residing near hazardous waste disposal sites may be subject to higher levels of methyl parathion in environmental media (i.e., air, groundwater, soil) than those experienced by the general population. Methyl parathion has been identified in at least 16 of the 1,585 hazardous waste sites that have been proposed for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL). However, the number of sites evaluated for methyl parathion is not known. As more sites are evaluated, the number of sites where methyl parathion has been detected may increase. 

Roney N, Henriques WD, Fay M, et al. 1998. Determining priority hazardous substances related to hazardous waste sites. Toxicol Ind Health 14 521-532. 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Aet (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq ], as amended by the Superflind Amendments and Reauthorization Aet (SARA) [Pub. L. 99-499], requires that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) develop jointly with the US. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA), in order of priority, a list of hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) prepare toxicological profiles for each substance included on the priority list of hazardous substances and assure the initiation of a research program to fill identified data needs associated with the substances. 

---