Hazardous Substances Strategy

To assess progress towards the objectives of the OSPAR Hazardous Substances Strategy, two assessment tools have been developed Background Concentrations (BCs) and associated Background Assessment Criteria (BACs), and Enviromnental Assessment Criteria (EACs) (OSPAR, 2004). 

Sampling strategies may include measurement of the hazardous substance ... 

Biosorption strategies consist of a group of applications involving the detoxification of hazardous substances such as heavy metals instead of transferring them from one medium to another by means of biosorbents, which may be either microbes or plants. Biosorption options are generally characterized as being less disruptive and may henceforth be carried out on-site, thereby eliminating the need to transport the toxic materials to treatment sites.12 Biosorption is a very cost-effective method... 

Another piece of legislative action to be considered is the OSPAR strategy regarding hazardous substances, known as the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of North-Atlantic . Among the OSPAR list of chemicals of priority action, surfactants NPEOs and so-called related substances, such as NP, are included among other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like PCBs, PAHs and Hg, indicating that these compounds show a risk to the marine environment. 

OSPAR strategy with regard to hazardous substances (Reference Nr. 1998-16)... 

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Pentachlorophenol m(PCP, mercury and organic mercury compounds, cadmium, lead and organic lead compounds, brominated flame retardants), nonylphenol/ethoxylates (NP, NPEs) amongst others in the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Hazardous Substances... 

This is an Implementation Strategy towards reaching the target of cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances by 2020. 

The ambition of the OSPAR Commission, moreover, as manifested in the Objective of the Strategy aims at continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances (as defined In Annex 1) with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations In the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. ... 

The Substitution Principle is one of the guiding principles of the OSPAR Strategy. In this function, the Substitution Principle continues to play an important role with regard to the implementation of the Strategy (Paragraph 5.5) where the application of the principle as a means of implementation requires the substitution of hazardous substances. Preferably non-hazardous substances should be selected over less-hazardous when replacing a substance. 

Substitution of hazardous substances is an element of risk management. In this context it is among the more demanding options of risk reduction. It is important to develop as rational strategies as possible for dealing with the lack of knowledge (cf Sections 1.5.9 and 1.5.10). 

A vital objective of future European chemicals policy is to avoid uncontrolled handling of hazardous substances. Assessment of each individual application on the basis of the individual substances involved (as provided for by the current regulatory system) is not an apt strategy, as the number of assessment and management cases that it produces is much too high. Quantitative risk analyses are only taken into account in the case of substances with clearly definable effect thresholds and controllable application conditions. For 90% of the market actors the particular product or application system must possess intrinsically safe properties, as most companies have neither closed systems nor the reqnired skills to deal with hazardons snbstances. 

The objective of the SubChem project was to analyse both the current situation and the framework conditions of hazardous substance substitution and also to draw up options for future strategies for action. The time frame being considered and the required review of individual case studies was generally limited to approximately twenty years. 

The leeway and motivations for substituting hazardous substances may indeed differ between small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large-scale enterprises. However, neither of the two types of enterprises appears to be more iimo-vative than the other per se. For example, the qualification of employees, the capital intensity of production, the availability of capital for research and development, the type of production and the competition strategy (mass or quality), the position on the supply chain as well as the corporate culture are at least just as decisive. 

The substitution of chemical solvents by water in paint and coating systems and also in cleaning processes creates complex evaluation issues, as the number of the various chemical components contained in the corresponding products generally increases. In addition, the release of persistent substances into the aquatic environment tends to be favoured by this. This therefore raises the question for assessing two suitable strategies containment of known hazardous substances in closed systems or substitution of the mobile solvent by complex water-based systems that are scarcely evaluable from a toxicological aspect. 

Strategies to reduce risks emanating from hazardous substances should not be restricted to the substitntion of a hazardous substance by a (hopefully) less hazardous one. A more useful approach is to consider the particular application and to consider alternative resolutions to the perceived problems. The problem could be solved either by substance substitntion or by other measures, such as design modification or system process changes. ... 

The second general step recommended to improve an existing situation is the optimization of treatment steps with regard to a lowering of the released amounts of hazardous substances [6,7]. In many cases this strategy is more intelligent and less expensive than a concentration of activities on the final treatment of released effluents. Typical examples for possible optimization are ... 

Recommendation 4b. To promote the development and implementation of contingency responses during both closure and postclosure operations, control strategies for unexpected liquid runoff or particle dispersion, as well as for special hazardous substances—such as asbestos—should be integrated in the closure plan. 

A None <0.3 The level of imposex in the most sensitive gastropod species is close to zero (0 30% of females have imposex) indicating exposure to TBT concentrations close to zero, which is the objective in the OSPAR strategy of hazardous substances. 

---