Pollution prevention ranking

Brown, R. and A. Mitteknan. 1993. Evaluation of existing methods to rank the relative carcinogenicity of polycyclic aromatic compounds PAH). Draft. Technical Resources, Inc., Contract No. 68-01-0022, for Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Sohd Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides, Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). 

The data collected is then used to prioritize waste streams and operations for assessment. Each waste stream is assigned a priority based on corporate pollution-prevention goals and objectives. Once waste origins are identified and ranked, potential methods to reduce the waste stream are evaluated. The identification of alternatives is generally based on discussions with the facility staff review of technical literature and contacts with suppliers, trade organizations, and regulatory agencies. 

The study team examined current obstacles to and incentives for implementing five of the highly ranked options. At least three major obstacles were identified (1) limited resources, (2) poor economic return, and (3) regulatory disincentives. Ifie study team concluded that these obstacles create a formidable constraint on implementing pollution prevention strategies that go beyond current regulatory requirements. 

The 12 options are ranked in Table XV with respect to cost effectiveness of release reduction, expressed in dollars per ton. The results indicate that five options—11b, Quarterly LDAR 5c, Secondary Seals on Storage Tanks 7a, Blowdown System Upgrade 6, Soils Control and 8, Modify Sampling—are the most cost effective with regard to release reduction. Taken together, these five options attain a release reduction of 6700 tons of hydrocarbons and hazardous solid waste per year at an annual cost of 2.2 million. Note that while soils control is a good pollution prevention option since it prevents the generation of hazardous waste, it... 

The scores achieved by each pollution prevention option under each of the ranking methods are summarized in Table XVII. disregarding minor differences between option scores, the scores achieved under each method are grouped into high, medium, or low categories. The absence of a ranking score under a particular ranking method indicates that option received a low score for that method. 

Mercury is ranked third by the CERCLA priority fist of toxic substances and has been found to be present in the environment in concentration that could be harmful [1]. Prevention measures for mercury pollution are primordial and the first proactive step is to identify the status of mercury pollution in high-risk areas. Though mercury is quite useful, it has long been known as a persistent, bio-accumulative toxic pollutant that adversely affects the central nervous system. Persistent, bio-accumulative,... 

---