Ranking systems

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 ... 

Federal Register, Part II, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 300, Hazard Ranking System Final Rule, Vol. 55, No. 241, December 14, 1990. 

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. 

QRA is generally resource intensive. FEIR, is much less although it uses the framework of QRA for screening and ranking systems by relative risk using order-of-magnitude estimates of the frequencies and consequences of events. It incorporates plant experience and industry data to estimate the potential for future losses. 

Kumar A, Xagoraraki I (2010) Pharmaceuticals, personal care products and endocrine-disrupting chemicals in U.S. surface and finished drinking waters a proposed ranking system. Sci Total Environ 408(23) 5972-5989... 

In summary, IL-1 and TNF-a activate mature osteoclasts indirectly via a primary effect on osteoblasts and by inhibiting osteoclast apoptosis. In addition, they increase osteoclast formation either by directly stimulating the proliferation of osteoclast precursors or by increasing the pro-osteoclastogenic capacity of bone stromal cells. Although in vitro TNF-a and IL-1 can apparently induce the development of TRAP+ osteoclasts in the absence of RANKL/RANK, all data seem to indicate that TNF-a and IL-1 potentiate osteoclast development via the activation of common second messenger systems, such as NF-/cB activation, and that the effects on OCS require the RANKL/RANK system (Jones et al. 2002). 

Khosla S (2001) Minireview the OPG/RANKL/RANK system. Endocrinology 142 5050-5055... 

Consequence-Based Ranking Systems Release consequence modeling can be used to rank potential chemical hazards. For example, the USEPAs RMP regulations require consequence modeling for a predefined worst-case scenario—release of the entire contents of the largest container of a material in 10 min. EPA provides lookup tables and software (RMPComp) to assist in estimating the hazard distances for materials covered by the RMP regulations. 

An ongoing risk analysis and risk ranking system that focuses and supports maintenance program needs. 

First of all, the CERCLA requires all hazardous waste releases over a prescribed threshold, known as reportable quantities (RQs), to be reported to National Response Center. Action is taken from that point to determine if it will be a CERCLA site. The CERCLA also established development of a National Contingency Plan. This plan includes all procedures for handling hazardous waste in the United States. The act also requires the creation of an uncontrolled hazardous waste site ranking system (HRS). The HRS determines if a site should be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), which is a list of all the Superfund sites. 

WATERS, R.D., CRUTCHER, M.D. and PARKER, F.L. (1993). Hazard ranking systems for chemical wastes and chemical waste sites, pages 115 to 170 in Hazard Assessment of Chemicals,Volume 8, Saxena, J., Ed. (Academic Press, New York). 

The development or application of new or existing toxicity ranking systems, based on the use of a battery of tests inspired by the WaterTox Program are presented. 

After completion of the WaterTox program, the test battery continued to be applied by laboratories from Argentina, Chile and Colombia to assess different types of environmental matrices. These initiatives facilitated the development or application of new or existing ranking systems that enabled evaluation of the effectiveness of biological treatment for the toxicity reduction of wastes and combined effluents. These studies are described herein. 

The proposed hazard assessment scheme (HAS) used in Colombia is a ranking system where toxicity data obtained from the application of a test battery enables one to determine the degree of toxicity of liquid samples on a relative basis. Test battery results are then integrated into the Potential Ecotoxic Effects Probe (PEEP) index formula developed by Environment Canada for the comparison of wastewaters (Costan et al., 1993). This index can be applied to evaluate the potential toxicity of industrial and municipal wastewaters, and to assess the effectiveness of toxicity abatement measures for effluents. This procedure is easy to apply and can be used with different batteries of tests (see Chapter 1 of this volume). 

Applying the WaterTox battery of tests in Argentina, Chile and Colombia for toxicity assessment of chemical contaminants present in different types of complex matrices by means of existing, modified or developed HAS approaches has proven to be environmentally beneficial. Water and wastewater samples, sewage sludge and biosolids from municipal treatment plants and effluent toxic loads, as well as pure compounds, were effectively scored as toxic or non-toxic with the ranking systems employed, thereby allowing them to be differentiated in terms of their adverse potential. In all cases, similar bioanalytical tools were employed to conduct these evaluations. 

Our group discussed rewards to the institutions to improve their records. For industry, the ranking system is important, because executives pay attention. The cover of a recent copy of Woman Engineer magazine showed rankings for the top 50 companies—how welcoming they were and what kinds of places they were for women to work at. Companies paid attention to that. 

High priority sites are those where hazardous materials might accumulate, move readily at shallow depths, or reappear at the surface in concentrated amounts. Low priority sites are those adjacent to lakes, ravines, or on steep slopes and presumed to have been well drained for an extended period. Any large site with known hazardous contents should be evaluated individually and referred to the appropriate agency regardless of its position in the geologic ranking system. 

Finally, several ranking systems have been developed for prioritizing the relative hazards at a large number of sites. 

Karlsson, J., Breitholtz, M., Eklund, B. (2006) A practical ranking system to compare toxicity of anti-fouling paints. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 456-464. 

Figure 10-11. The method ranking system. Colors reflect suitability rankings based on user criteria for retention, resolution, and run time as per equation (10-5).

Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System Def. of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Standards... 

CERCLA was passed in 1980 to provide a federally supervised system for the mitigation of chronic environmental damage, particularly the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous waste. In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Each Superfund site has been assessed, characterized, and prioritized based on risk. Potential sites are first screened using a preliminary assessment (PA) sites deemed a significant threat are then evaluated using a hazard ranking system (HRS) to measure the risk of the site relative to that of other potential sites. The most hazardous sites are then placed on the NPL in the order of their potential risk. 

---