National Priority

With my European background, I was when I came to America and still am impressed by the rather loosely organized, more decentralized way of research support. Of course, even in a great country like ours resources are not limitless and inevitably prevailing trends of research set priorities. In my field of interest the 1970s and 1980s were a period when, after two oil crises, research on hydrocarbon fuels and their synthetic preparation had significant public interest and support. Catalytic research in its many aspects was heavily pursued and considered a national priority. 

Soil. Composting of soils contaminated by high explosives is being carried out at the Umatilla Army Depot near Hermiston, Oregon (70). Soil from munitions washout lagoons is being treated iadoors ia compost rows of 2,000 m, and the estimated cost is less than one-third the estimated cost of iaciaeration. If this is successful, there are 30 similar sites on the National Priority List that could be treated ia a similar way. 

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. 

Due to local or national priorities, technical developments, and climatic regions, in some cases a higher thermal quality (fewer dissatisfied) or a lower quality (more dissatisfied) may be sufficient. In both cases the PMV and PPD indices, the model of draft, and the relation between local thermal discomfort parameters and the expected percentage of dissatisfied people may be used to determine different ranges of parameters for the evaluation and design of the thermal environment. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Rodenbeck SE. 1997. An evaluation of the relationship between maternal exposure to trichloroethylene in drinking water and birth weight at the Tucson International Airport area national priorities list site, Pima County, Arizona. Dissertation, Tulane University. 

Diisopropyl methylphosphonate has been identified at 2 of the 1,416 hazardous waste sites that have been proposed for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) (HazDat 1997). One site, identified in Figure 5-1, is the RMA located near Denver, Colorado. As diisopropyl methylphosphonate was never made commercially, the EPA neither expects nor routinely looks for this chemical at hazardous waste sites unless site history indicates it might be present. 

In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Commonly known as Superfund, the program under this law is focused on the remediation of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Since 1980, Superfund has assessed nearly 44,400 sites. To date, 33,100 sites have been removed from the Superfund inventory to aid their economic redevelopment, and 11,300 sites remain active with the site assessment program or are included in the National Priorities List (NPL) for the implementation of remedial actions. By September 2000, 1509 sites were included in the NPL with ongoing or completed cleanup activities. 

---