vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
Washington, DC 20460
Toxic Substances
Chemical Selection
Methods:
An Annotated
Bibliography
Second Edition
Toxics Integration
Information Series
EPA560/TIIS-83-003
March, 1983
-------
Toxics Integration Information Series EPA 560/TIIS-83-003
March, 1983
Chemical Selection Methods:
An Annotated Bibliography
Second Edition
Daniel E. Meyer
Verna L. Halpin
Project Manager
Regina Origoni
Contract No. 68-01-6651
Work Assignment 05
Technical Manager
Robert Janney
Office of Toxics Integration
Project Officer
Douglas W. Sellers
Management Support Division
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Office of
Toxics Integration, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The selection, ordering, and ranking of chemical substances stands as one of
the most critical, yet difficult, tasks facing those who are engaged in the
testing, assessment, and regulation of substances as well as enforcement of
those regulations. The Office of Toxics Integration has discovered a number
of resource materials that might serve the needs of those in other federal
agencies as well as those in states, industry, and academia. This annotated
bibliography is intended to assist those faced with decisions related to the
selection of chemicals to become" aware of the state-of-the-art for those
decision-making processes. Hopefully, duplicative and overlapping efforts can
be avoided through such awareness.
We anticipate further updating of this bibliography. Your comments, suggested
revisions, and additions should be addressed to: Office of Toxics
Integration, TS-777, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 382-3393. Copies of all materials
referenced in this bibliography are available for examination.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
Acting Director
Office of Toxics Integration
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Chemical Selection Methods 6
Federal Government
— Environmental Protection Agency 7-19
— National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health 20
— National Cancer Institute 21-22
— Consumer Product Safety Commission 23
— National Science Foundation 24-27
— Department of Transportation 28
— Department of the Army " 29
State Governments
— California 30
— Michigan 31
International
— United Nations Environmental Programme 32
— European Economic Community 33
— International Agency for Research on Cancer 34
— Canada 35
- Industry 36-38
Other (academia, etc.) 39-51
Author Index 52
11
-------
Acknowledgements
This bibliography was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS). Special
thanks are due to Judy Hushon, who provided many system references
for this report, and to Ginny Shreve for her efforts in lha first
edition. Document identification and retrieval, as well as
preparation of original abstracts, were conducted primarily by
Tracor Jitco, Incorporated, under contract to the Office of Toxic
Substances. We gratefully acknowledge John Gevertz and Elaine
Bild, Office of Toxics Integration, for their direction and input
in the first edition of this bibliography.
ill
-------
OTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE TOXICS INTEGRATION POLICY SERIES:
State Administrative Models for Toxic Substances Management (July 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-018: PB81-147373
State Integrated Toxics Management: Fact and Challenge (July 1981)
EPA-560/TIPS-81-001; PB81-242406
Chemical Substances Designation (December 1981)
EPA-560/TIIS-82; PB83-130294
OTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE TOXICS INTEGRATION INFORMATION SERIES:
EPA Chemical Activities Status Report - 1st Edition (June 1979)
EPA-560/13-79-003
EPA Chemical Activities Status Report - 2nd Edition (December 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-040(a), PB81-176414; EPA-13-80-040(b), PB81-176422
EPA Chemical Activities Status Report - 3rd Edition (June 1982)
EPA-560/TIIS-82-002a, -002b
Chemical Substances Designation (December 1981)
EPA-560/TIIS-82-003, PB83-130294; -004, PB83-130302; -005, PB83-130310;
-006; PB83-130328
Directory of Federal Coordinating Groups for Toxic Substances - 1st Edition
(June 1979) EPA-560/13-80-008; PB80-137870
Directory of Federal Coordinating Groups for Toxic Substances - 2nd Edition
(March 1980) PB80-177314
Perspectives on the Top 50 Production Volume Chemicals (July 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-27; PB80-221682
Federal Activites in Toxic Substances (May 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-015 Revised May 1983; PB-157638
TSCA Status Report for Existing Chemicals Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-033
TSCA Status Report for Existing Chemicals Volume 2, Issue 2 (July 1981)
EPA-560/TIIS-81-004
Perspectives on State-EPA Grant Activities (September 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-037; PB82-229105,
Chemical Selection Methods: An Annotated Bibliography (November 1980)
EPA-560/TIIS-80-001; PB81-241481
Chemical Information Resources Handbook (January 1981)
EPA-560/TIIS-81-002; PB82-225657
iv
-------
Toxic Substances Control Act Grants to States (July 1981)
EPA-560/TIIS-81-003; PB81-232969
TSCA Chemicals in Commerce Inventory: Regional and State Perspectives
(August 1981) EPA-560/TIIS-81-005
For copies, contact:
National T-echnical Information Service
4285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
-------
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
This bibliography is intended to provide individuals interested in chemical
selection (priority setting, ranking, indexing, sorting) with a collection of
relevant materials. Examining such materials may prevent unnecessary
duplication of effort and aid in developing new methods to help select
chemicals of concern. The selection methods listed here were developed by the
SPA, other federal agencies, state agencies, and contractors for these
agencies, as well as industrial, academic, and public interest organizations.
Included with each entry is a brief abstract. Some of the abstracts were
prepared specifically for this effort; others accompanied the original
documents. This second edition adds 15 new citations to the original report;
these new citations are asterisked in the Author Index.
Chemical selection has been and continues to be of interest to many groups
concerned with the assessment and regulation of toxic substances. For
example, the Toxic Substances Control Act (Public Law 94469) requires the EPA
to compile an inventory of chemical substances manufactured, imported, or
processed in the United States for commercial purposes. By June 1982, over
70,000 chemicals were included in this Inventory. The EPA is also responsible
for determining which of these chemicals may require testing, which should be
subject to information-gathering rales and which might require regulatory
controls. Making these types of determinations requires "selecting" small
groups of substances from larger groups.
Because of the large number of potentially toxic substances and the variety of
actions possible under numerous federal and state authorities, the development
and use of systematic selection methods has become necessary. Of course, use
of systematic selection methods is appropriate only at certain stages in
decision processes affecting chemicals. For example, early in any process,
candidates must be screened to identify substances clearly requiring some
assessment; later, candidates from the first group must be chosen for more
in-depth consideration; and, finally, a few candidates are selected for
intensive analysis. Thus, selection methods can be applied to candidate pools
that are large or small and to information ranging from limited to extensive.
However, selection schemes must be developed and employed "operationally,"
that is, with regard to the requirements of the particular stage in ths
decision-making process that is being considered.
Limitations
There are also some inherent limitations in the use of any chemical selection
method. Most selection methods involve consideration of some or all of the
following factors: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity,
neurotoxicity, and other chronic human health effects; acute human health
Excludedfrom this inventory are mixtures, pesticides, tobacco, food, food
additives, drugs, cosmetics, firearms, and nuclear materials.
-------
effects; environmental toxicity; types and quantities of emissions and
environmental exposure; bioaccumulation; costs of regulation; and regulatory
authority. Any method that involves combining various categories of
information to arrive at some single index of concern risks obscuring the
problems created by the original data.
Existing systematic selection methods generally use some form of scoring or
ranking which involves assigning a dimension!ess or arbitrary number to each
of the factors being considered. Conversions of this type, while summarizing
large amounts of information, also tend to obscure the original information,
and fail to incorporate a measure of uncertainty. Suppose, for example, that
the number "3" is assigned to any substance to which between 10,000 and
100,000 persons are exposed. Not only will this number fail to convey
accurately the number exposed, it will also fail to provide an indication of
the level of uncertainty in the estimate or an indication of the basis for ':he
estimate (e.g., monitoring, modeling).
Another limitation to the use of many scoring methods is that they employ
simple additive or multiplicative algorithms to combine factors. Such
algorithms often ignore or distort che true relationship between f act :>r^. IT
the case of an additive system, suppose that for Chemical X, carcinogenicity
is assigned a "5", no information is available for six other factors so each
is assigned a "0", and persistence is assigned a "3". The total score for
Chemical X is "8". For Chemical Y, carcinogenicity is assigned a "1", each of
six other factors is also assigned a "1", and persistence is assigned a "3".
Thus, the total score for Chemical Y is "10". It is unclear, however, whether
Chemical Y is really deserving of more intensive review than Chemical X,
regardless of the policy framework governing the evaluator.
Some methods utilize "flagging" or "triggering," as a means of selection.
"Flagging" refers to setting threshold levels or employing "discriminators"
for various factors in order to select candidates. Any chemical may be
"flagged" if it exceeds the discriminators for certain combinations of
factors. The use of "flags" or "triggers" in a selection scheme avoids the
complex data manipulations required for the systems discussed above. However,
selection methods using "flagging" are only effective if the factors are
chosen carefully.
System Comparisons
It is beyond the scope of this work to perform a comprehensive review and
critique of past priority scoring systems developed for use in selecting
chemicals for study and/or possible regulatory action in other contexts.
However, Table 1 summarizes the number and types of variables used in several
different systems. In general, these few selected systems were designed to
accommodate a wide variety of information. Three of the systems call for
scoring more than two dozen different variables.
-------
Table 1
NUMBER AND TYPES OF FACTORS CONSIDERED
(Numbers represent the number of variables within each category.)
System
A
B
C
D
E
F
Produc-
tion or
release
1
7*****
0
2
4
i
L
Expo-
sure
2**
9***
2***
0
12
14
Biological Responses
for humans*
5
5
6
3
6
6
Other
0**
5
1
1
3
4
Total
5**
10
7
4
9
10
Multi-
media
charac-
ter
1******
0
0
0
0
0
Total
factors
scored
9
26
9
9****
25
25
*In cases where the scoring factor could apply either to humans
group of animals (e.g., "terrestrial animals"), it was counted
or to a larger
as applying to
those that could not
as an exposure
humans. The only factors considered under "other" were
include human data, such as plants and aquatic animals.
**Bioaccumulation, 1 of the 2, was treated by the system
variable.
***Persistence and bioacruraulation were counted here as exposure variables,
although they were treated on par with response variables in the system.
****Included three miscellaneous variables (ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity) that relate to neither production, exposure, nor biological
ef feet s .
*****Included production, consumption, imports, exports, and release to
various specific environmental media.
******A factor was included that gave extra points if other agencies had
standards for the chemical being scored.
-------
Table 2 compares some general properties of the systems surveyed. The first
column (ranking vs. screening as the overall approach) distinguishes systems
that are intended to rank a number of candidates for action from systems that
use a series of screens (pass/fail tests) arranged in a decision tree to
select a group of candidate chemicals that meet a specified set of criteria.
The second column discusses the method for computation of final scores. All
but one system had some provision for doing this, usually based on derived
scores rather than raw data.
The final column of Table 2 represents an independent assessment of Che need
for research-level expertise. Generally, the criterion for this judgment was
that if the system required extensive evaluation of raw research results in a
particular field, it would usually be necessary to have a Ph.D. or equivalent
in that field involved in some way in at least checking the analysis.
Summary
Systematic selection methods will certainly continue to be significant: in the
selection of chemicals for assessment and regulation. Such methods can
provide consistency in decision-making. They also can promote efficient
resource allocation. Finally, use of these methods can aid in the
defensibility and effectiveness of regulatory actions.
The selection schemes presented in this publication range from quite simple to
very sophisticated and, with minor tailoring, can be adapted to virtually any
chemical selection need. This publication is intended to provide quick
reviews of many approaches to chemical selection, with the hope that an early
overview will save time and money for those wishing to select or create a
system of their own.
-------
Table 2
GENERAL PROPERTIES OF THE PROCEDURE FOR ARRIVING AT FINAL SCORES
System
Ranking or
screening
as overall
approach
Ranking
Ranking
(within
components)
Ranking,
but
screening
at end
Screening/
Selection
Ranking fol-
lowed by a
sort into
three "zones'
of overall
hazard
Selected properties
Uses only derived scores.
Related factors grouped into
"components"; components com-
bined in various ways (e.g.,
addition, multiplication).
Component scores normalized,
weighted, and aggregated to
form final score.
Uses raw data for production/
release , but derived scores
for all pther factors.
Authors opposed combining
scores because of different
scales used .
Uses only derived scores.
Scores combined by addition.
Uses quantitative data cut-
off for production/release,
but derived scores for
biological response.
Yes/no decision tree used
to select substances; no
scores combined.
Uses quantitative data ex-
clusively. Each factor's
data added or multiplied;
some factors weighted.
Overall ex-
pertise required
Ph.D. or equivalent
in one specialty
(biology)
Ph.D. or
equivalent in
many specialties
Ph.D. or equivalent
in many specialties
(aquatic biology,
environmental
transport,
toxicology,
carcinogenesis,
genetics)
Ph.D. or equivalent
in one specialty
(biology)
Ph.D. or equivalent
in many specialties
Ranking
(within
components)
Uses only derived scores.
Addition of factor scores
into four "component" scores;
these scores normalized. No
further aggregation of com-
ponent scores, so no final
score for each substance.
Ph.D. or equivalent
in many specialties
-------
Chemical Selection Methods
-------
Allport, J.; Casey, S.; Cook, J.; at al.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
A Study of Industrial Data on Candidate Chemicals for Testing—Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
EPA-560/5-77/006, Research Request No. 1
NTIS //PB-274 264/1GA, 1977
This report summarizes the work done by Stanford Research Institute for EPA's
Office of Toxic Substances and includes three major parts. (1) Data
previously collected on a NSF study were supplemented to provide the following
information, where available, on 667 industrial chemicals: (a) United States
production; (b) estimates of quantities released annually to the environment;
(c) major uses; and (d) references on mutagenicity tests. Mutagenicity dac-a
on 25 chemicals were evaluated after developing a list of assays and criteria
for classifying the results as either positive or negative/inadequate. (2)
Tables which contain economic information on 1,791 chemicals belonging to 26
structural classes considered to represent potential industrial carcinogens
and mutagens were prepared. For those chemicals with annual production
greater than one million pounds, market forecasts which present a brief
summary of production, consumption patterns, major uses, possible substitutes,
and growth trends were prepare'd. (3) Carcinogenicity data for all chemicals
belonging to three classes (epoxides, alkyl halides, and vinyl halides) were
used to correlate structural features with carcinogenic activity. Criteria
were developed for estimating the potential carcinogenicity of chemicals in
each class. These criteria were applied to those chemicals in each class
known to be produced commercially or for which there was evidence of
significant human exposure. The results of the study were summarized in three
separat e reports .
-------
Ross, R.H.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Welch, J.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances
Proceedings of the EPA Workshop on the Environmental Scoring of Chemicals
Washington, D.C., August 13-15, 1979
EPA-560/11-80-010, May 1980
The environmental scoring of chemicals is viewed by the EPA as a tool to
assist in the ranking or ordering of the universe of chemicals that are under
the jurisdiction of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The purpose of scoring
is to identify most of the chemicals that have a high probability for
requiring review for regulation or testing. This report describes a 3-day
workshop held in Washington, B.C., August 13-15, 1979, to develop an
environmental scoring system. Initial discussions centered on the
determination of a safety factor (calculated as the concentration at which an
effect is observed divided by environmental concentration) that would allow a
numerical score to be assigned to a chemical to reflect its potential hazard.
Further discussion, however, indicated that the environmental concentration of
a chemical is usually not available and that the estimation of an
environmental concentration is not readily accomplished; therefore, a scoring
system was developed that does not require environmental concentrations. This
system relates environmental exposure to toxicity by using a multiplier (3x,
2x, or Ix) which is assigned on the basis of the concentration at which an
effect is observed. The applicability of the scoring system is demonstrated
by scoring selected chemicals.
-------
Flinn, J.E.; Thomas, T.J.; Bishop, M.D.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio
Identification Systems for Selecting Chemicals or Chemical Classes as
Candidates for Evaluation
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
EPA-560/1-74/001
NTIS //PB-233 196/OGA, November 1974
This report is a review of various systems for selecting, assessing, and
ranking chemicals for their health and environmental effects. Systems for two
general areas are considered: health planning, including environmental,
occupational, and general health; and environmental management. It is noted
that the term "system" is broadly defined to include not only formalized
organizational structures, models, and methodologies, but also less fornal
tools, methods, and working groups which have been created to rank chemical
substances or effects. Existing systems are classified in several ways. Some
are considered information repositories for chemical data, particularly
toxicity data. Other systems are classified with respect to whether their
function is to identify chemical substances before or after general exposure
of the public and the environment occurs. Each of these types is further
categorized into those which identify new or unrecognized chemical "stressors"
and those which evaluate recognized "stressors." Particular attention is
given to methods used by various federal agencies. It is coir-laded that most
existing systems are deficient in that they focus on acute rather than
long-term effects; have a limited domain of concern; and are aot designed to
identify hazards from degradation products, synergistic effects, or effects on
the nonliving environment. An appendix summarizes results of a seminar on
"Early Warning Systems for Toxic Substances" held January 30 - February 1,
1974.
-------
Venezian, E.G.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Pre-screening for Environmental Hazards - A System for Selecting and
Prioritizing Chemicals
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C.
EPA/560/1-77/002, April 1977
Alternatives were considered for prescreening chemicals to assess their
potential environmental hazard. A system design concept which takes into
account both the toxicity of the chemical and the eventual levels which it can
be expected to reach in the environment was selected for further analysis. li
is noted that, although neither toxicity nor eventual levels can be predicted
with great accuracy, the accuracy attainable by simple methods appears
adequate for selecting and ranking chemicals for additional investigation. A
specific design which relies on data which are usually available was developed
to the point of testing the feasibility of collecting the necessary data and
performing the required computations on five chemicals.
10
-------
TSCA Interagency Testing Committee: Initial Report to the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
42 FR 197:55026-80, October 1977
Section 4(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the
establishment of a committee to identify and recommend to the EPA
Administrator chemical substances which should be tested to determine their
hazard to human health or the environment. This report documents procedures
used by the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee for selecting those chemical
substances recommended for testing. Reasons for each recommendation are
outlined. Available data and potential data for carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, and chronic toxic effects were all considered, as was the ability
of the substances to bioaccumulate or cause deleterious environmental
effects. A scoring system which took into account both available information
and the lack of it for these factors was used in the screening process.
Categories or substances recommended for further testing include alkyl
paraffins, chloromethane, cresols, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, nitrobenzene,
toluene, and xylenes. The formation of the Interagency Testing Committee, its
responsibilities, and the approach used in forming the recommendations are
discussed. Sources of data used in the preparation of the initial substances
list are given. A linear weighting scheme used to rank the substances is
discussed.
11
-------
Enviro Control Inc.
Rockville, Maryland
Scoring Chemicals for Health and Ecological Effects Testing
Proceedings of TSCA-ITC Chemical Scoring System Workshop
February 25-28, 1979
Since its inception in early 1977, the Toxic Substances Control Act
Interagency Testing Committee has submitted to the EPA Administrator four
reports recommending a total of 33 chemicals and chemical categories to be
tested for their potential to cause unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment. In order to identify these chemicals from among the
approximately 44,000 chemicals in commercial production in the United States
today, it was essential for the Committee to have procedures for ranking
chemicals as to the need for testing to determine their hazard to human health
and the environment.
The Committee used existing source lists of hazardous chemicals to form a
Master File, as described in the Committee's Initial Report to the
Administrator. This list of 1,700 chemicals was subjected to scoring, first
on the basis of production, release, operation, and exposure, and subsequently
on the basis of biological activity. The scoring procedure was developed in
conjunction with Clement Associates, Inc., the Committee's support contractor
during its first 2 years of operation, and is described in this report.
In an effort to make any possible improvement in this numerical scoring
system, the Committee decided to subject the scoring system to the scrutiny
and criticism of individuals from academia, industry, and government who were
expert in the various aspects of release, exposure, and effects that comprise
the system. Enviro Control, Inc. was awarded a contract to organize a scoring
workshop and to prepare a report on the proceedings. The workshop was held in
San Antonio, Texas, February 25-28, 1979, with approximately 80 technical
experts participating.
12
-------
Fuller, B.; Hushon, J.; Kornreich, M.; et al .
Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia
Preliminary Scoring of Selected Organic Air Pollutants, 5 Volumes
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-450/3-77/008a,b,c,d,e
NTIS #PB-264 442/5ST, October 1976
This report presents a scheme for evaluating the relative hazard to humans
resulting from air emissions during production of synthetic organic
chemicals. Data on production, fraction lost during production, volatility,
and toxicity have been compiled for 637 organic chemicals. A scoring system
using these data elements was developed and is described in this repot" .
Scores assigned to the 637 chemicals are presented. Four appendices were
published with this report. The appendices are dossiers containing chemistry,
production, and toxicity data for the 637 synthetic organic chemicals.
13
-------
Fiksel, J.; Segal, M.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
An Approach to Prioritization of Environmental Pollutants: T'ns Action Alert
System — Final Draft
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Monitoring ind Data Support Division
Washington, D .C .
Contract No. 68-01-3857, June 1980
The Action Alert System was developed to assist the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards in evaluating available data, setting priorities,
and determining appropriate actions. The system can aid in sorting large
groups of chemicals into "manageable clusters" for further examination.
The two required data elements are (1) concentrations, including drinking
water, human diet, and ambient water; and (2) effects data, including chronic
mammalian, acute human or mammalian, and aquatic toxicity. Six auxiliary
modules have been developed to serve as surrogates in cases where data are
lacking or to enable use of more extensive data where they exist. This report
includes a detailed description of the conceptual development of the system, a
presentation of the six auxiliary modules, and a user's guide. The user's
guide provides detailed instructions for the application of" the Action Alert
System to the ranking of specific chemicals.
14
-------
Dorsey, J.A.; Johnson, L.D.; Statnick, R.M.; et al .
Environmental Assessment Sampling and Analysis: Phased Approach and
Techniques for Level 1
Prepared for U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-600/2-77/115
NTIS //PB-268 563/4ST, June 1977
The report discusses a three-level approach to sampling and analysis for
environmental source assessment. A research program was initiated to develop
a sampling and analytical approach for conducting environmental source
assessments of the feed, product, and waste streams associated with industrial
and energy processes. An environmental source assessment identifies potential
air, water, and terrestrial problems for both regulated and unregulated
pollutants. The three-level sampling and analysis approach resulted from this
program. Level 1 is a complete survey of all streams, using simplified,
generalized sampling and analytical methods which permit priority ranking;
i.e., hazardous streams are distinguished from those less hazardous or
relatively innocuous in nature. Level 2 is detailed sampling and analysis of
the streams ranked in the highest priority by the Level 1 survey. Other
streams may then be addressed according to potential hazard. Level 3 involves
continuous monitoring of "key" indicator materials to evaluate the effect on
emissions of process variability.
15
-------
Archer, S.R.; McCurley, W.R.; Rawlings, G.D.
Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio
Source Assessment: Pesticide Manufacturing Air Emissions—Overview and
Prioritization
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Lab
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-600/2-78/004d
NTIS //PB-279 171/3ST, March 1978
This report is an overview of the pesticide manufacturing industry and ranks
80 major pesticides based on their potential environmental burden from an air
pollution standpoint. Production of synthetic organic pesticides was about
640,000 metric tons in 1974. Thirty-seven major synthetic organic pesticides,
those with annual production of 4,540 or more tons, accounted for 742 of the
market. Elemental chlorine is common to most pesticides, but other raw
materials include hydrogen cyanide, carbon disulfide, phosgene, phosphorus
pentasulfide, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, various amines, and concentrate!
acids and caustics. Air pollution aspects of the pesticide manufacturing
industry are essentially without quantitative data. For some plants, the
pollution caused by loss of a-ctive ingredients is less significant than that
caused by unreacted by-products. Evaporation from holding ponds and
evaporation lagoons may also be an emission source, although few quantitative
data are available. Emissions emanate from various pieces of equipment and
enter the atmosphere as both active ingredients and as raw materials,
intermediates, and by-products. Air emission control devices include
baghouses, cyclone separators, electrostatic precipitators, incinerators, and
gas scrubbers. Synthetic organic pesticide production in 1985 will be about
806,000 metric tons.
16
-------
Brown, S.L.; Holt, B.R.; McCaleb, K.E.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
Systems for Rapid Ranking of Environmental Pollutants: Selection of Subjects
for Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Health and Ecological Effects
Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/5-78/012
NTIS //PB-284 338/1ST, June 1978
This document reports the results of the development and testing of a system
for rapidly ranking environmental pollutants. One potential use for the
system is in choosing the most important candidates for Scientific and
Technical Assessment Reports (STAR). Of several possible approaches to
ranking environmental agents, a system depending on expert opinion but
assisted by an objective subsystem was selected for development. The system
defines procedures for collecting, processing, and evaluating data on
production and use; environmental transport, transformation, and rate; and
human health welfare and ecological effects. A test of the objective
subsystem confirmed the utility of the system. Of ten candidate agents, the
three highest ranked were cyanides, carbon disulfide, and beryllium.
17
-------
Stacey, G.S.; Flinn, J.E.
Battelle Columbus Labs, Ohio
Development of an Economics-Based Methodology for Projecting Future Pollution
Problems
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Health and Ecological Effects
Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/5-78/011
NTIS //PB-284 337/3ST, June 1978
The report describes a project designed to develop a methodology for
identifying potential future toxic substance pollution problems. An approach
was desired that would be systematic, comprehensive, and futuristic. The
methodology developed is based on exposure and initiates the identification of
problems by focusing on the potential for their occurrence in the production,
exchange, and consumption of goods and services. Products are ranked
according to the potential they have for being associated with future
pollution problems. For the high-ranked products, additional information on
the chemical constituents of the product are identified. The final step is to
analyze the chemical constituents to determine which chemicals occur
frequently and in large quantities. At the same time the potential that each
of the chemicals has for resulting in toxic substance problems would be
assessed. In ranking the products, parameters concerning historical growth,
future growth, dispersion, technical change, and value of shipments were
developed and applied. A specific group of products was examined to determine
their chemical content. The results of this effort showed that identifying
chemical constituents of products required considerable resources. The final
step of analyzing chemicals to determine frequency and quantity was developed
conceptually, but, due to resource limitations, could not be applied.
18
-------
Cleland, J.G.; Kingsbury, G.L.; Sims, R.C.; White, J.B.
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Multimedia Environmental Goals for Environmental Assessment. 4 Volumes
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-600/7-77/I36a, EPA600/7-77/136b, EPA600/7-79/176A, EPA600/7-79/176B
NT IS //PB-276 919/8ST, //PB-276 920/6ST, //PB80-115108, //PB80-115116, August 1979
The report gives results of a study of the derivation of Multimedia
Environmental Goals (MEG's). MEG's are levels of significant contaminants or
degradents (in ambient air, water, or land, or in emissions or effluents
conveyed to the ambient media) that are judged to be either appropriate for
preventing certain negative effects in the surrounding populations or
ecosystems or representative of the control limits achievable through
technology. In the context of deriving MEG's, Volume I: offers perspective
on the broad range of contaminants whose control is vital to both industry a.i
-------
Pielmeier, G.R.
Tracer Jitco, Inc.
Rockville, Maryland
Identification of High Risk Occupational Groups and Industrial Processes Using
RTECS/NOHS Data—Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Public Health Service
Center for Disease Control
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies
Cincinnati, Ohio
Contract No. 210-78-0076, November 1979
Two NIOSH data files, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances and
the National Occupational Hazard Survey, contain data that pertain to the risk
posed to workers by toxic chemicals in the workplace. In order c'lit
occupationally and industrially defined groups of workers at high risk mig'ic
be identified and given their proper priorities in NIOSH activities,
algorithms were developed which combine data from the two data files
identified above, produce indexes of the potential risk to workers in specific
occupations and industries, and rank the chemicals to which workers are
exposed in terms of their toxicological hazard and their potential risk to all
workers. The steps involved in development of these algorithms are described
in this report. Five indexes are developed: (1) Hazard Risk Index, (2)
Adjusted Hazard Risk Index, (3) Occupational Risk Index, (4) Industry Risk
Index, and (5) Occupation within Industry Risk Index. Representative pages
from the indexes are presented.
20
-------
Stanford Research Institute
Menlo Park, California
Criteria and Procedures for Chemical Selection
Prepared for Chemical Selection Working Group, National Cancer Institute,
Bethesda, Maryland
Contract: N01-CP-95607, October 1977
This report describes the criteria and procedures used by the Chemical
Selection Working Group to select chemicals for NCI's carcinogenesis bioassay
program. Chemicals are nominated for consideration by a variety of government
agencies and others. A two-step process is then used for selection. The
first step involves gathering limited data to determine if the chemical meets
qualifying criteria. In order to qualify, a chemical must: not currently be
undergoing testing by the NCI bioassay program or other programs; not have
been adequately tested previously; and have high annual consumption or
evidence of exposure from environmental occurrence. If the chemical meets
these criteria, more extensive selection criteria are then applied. This step
involves analyses of: exposure information, including consumption, use
patterns, human exposure, and environmental occurrence; and evidence for
possible carcinogenic activity, including human data, animal data, short-term
tests, metabolism, and structural/activity relationships.
21
-------
Stanford Research Institute
Menlo Park, California
An Automated Procedure for Assessing Possible Carcinogenic Activity of
Chemicals Prior to Testing
Prepared for National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Contracts: N01-CP-33285 NIH-NCI-71-2045, 1975
This report discusses the systematic application of information regarding the
carcinogenicity of chemicals to the prediction of carcinogenicity activity of
untested chemicals. The method focuses on structural relationships between
the chemicals being examined and known carcinogens. The development of an
activity tree is presented for implementing a procedure for ranking chemicals
prior to testing in laboratory animals. The activity tree method classifies a
large number of chemicals by asking a series of increasingly more specific
questions about their chemical structure. Expert consultants then offer
estimates regarding the probability of any chemical in an end point of the
tree being carcinogenic and the relative potency of the carcinogenic activity
if the chemical proves to be carcinogenic. A level of confidence is
attributed to each estimate. Estimates are also made specific to the four
routes of administration (i.e., oral, inhalational, dermal, and prenatal) of
the compound to the test animal, corresponding to the routes used ii :he
exposure estimates. For the "development of this activity tree, six experts
offered their considerations on five classes of substances known to concala
carcinogens: (1) naturally occurring substances, (2) aliphatic nitrogen-
containing compounds, (3) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, (4) aromatic
amines, and (5) inorganic compounds. Their reports are summarized and the
current activity values for the tree are given. An appendix describes
computer implementation of the activity methodology.
22
-------
Becker, D.S.
IIT Research Institute
Design of a Chemical Hazard Ranking System — Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Bethesda, Maryland
Contract No. CPSC-C-77-0068, December 1978
The Consumer Product Safety Commission would like to rank the health hazards
of the chemicals in consumer products to enable them to allocate their
resources in an appropriate manner. The three main factors of consumer
chemical hazard due to consumer products are: (1) toxicity, (2) dose per
person, and (3) population exposed. Unfortunately, these factors are not
available as standardized statisitics, nor can they be calculated by
standardized formulas. Population exposed could be computed from marketing
data for each product, but this would be prohibitively expensive. Dose per
person should be computable from a product's known characteristics (aerosol,
skin contact, frequency of use, etc.), though accepted standardized equations
do not exist. Chemical toxic strength factors for carcinogens, mutagens, and
teratogens are known for only a few percent of consumer chemicals. No
standard method for extrapolating latent toxic strength factors from data on
the tested chemicals to the untested ones exists. Typically, these problems
have been overcome by having panels of experts rate the three factors based on
unstated rules. However, the scope of the problem for consumer chemicals
favors a computerized approach based on systematic procedures. First, such a
system could efficiently re-rank all chemicals as new data became available.
Second, it is less expensive to use automated procedures for this
application. Third, it is more precise to make all the decision criteria
explicit. This report presents uniform techniques for estimating the
toxicity, dose per person, and population exposed factors, and for calculating
a hazard score from them. The procedures are sufficiently general that they
can be applied, using available data, to all consumer chemicals within an
automated system.
23
-------
Nelson, N. ; van Duuren, B; Goldschmidt, B.
Final Report of NSF Workshop Panel to Select Organic Compounds Hazardous to
the Environment
National Science Foundation, 1975
A selection process was developed to identify manufactured organic chemicals
that may be of special interest because of their effects on environment and/or
health. This process is conducted by an advisory panel comprised of members
from government, industry, academia, and public interest groups. The
selection process was divided into two phases. Phase I identified and ranked
275 compounds in descending order of release rate. The release rate (R) is
defined as R = (P+I)FD + PFPL
where: P = the annual U.S. production,
I = the annual imported quantity,
FJ-J = the fraction of compound which goes to
non-intermediate dispersive uses,
and FpL = the fraction of production lost during
manufacturing, conversion, and product formulation
and that which escapes from the plant site.
Each advisory panel member identified 10 chemicals, regardless of the quantity
produced, which they felt merited inclusion on the list. Sixty-two additional
chemicals were thus identified and added to the 275 chemicals on the list.
Each chemical was independently rated on a scale of 0 (no interest) to 5
(highest interest) by each member. The list was re-ranked using the mean
value of the panels' interest and the top 80 chemicals were selected for Phase
II evaluation. Phase II evaluation consisted of obtaining data on three
factors: (1) production volume, losses to the environment, impurities, etc.;
(2) toxicity, covering mammalian, nonmammalian, and environmental effects; and
(3) chemical properties, including persistence.
The data for each chemical were reviewed by each panel member and each
chemical was discussed by the entire panel. A statement of the panel
discussion was prepared for each chemical and the compounds were again rated
independently by each panel member for health and environmental effects. The
selection process used the combined interests of its diverse membership to
rank chemicals for further research.
-------
Brown, S.L.; Chan, F.Y.; Jones, J.L., et al.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
Research Program on Hazard Priority Ranking of Manufactured Chemicals
5 volumes
Prepared for National Science Foundation
Washington, B.C.
NTIS #PB-263 161/2ST; //PB-263 162/OST; //PB-263 163/8ST; #PB-263 164/6ST;
//PB-263 165/3ST, April 1975
This research effort by SRI was divided into two phases. In Phase I, the
universe of manufactured organic chemicals was reduced to 250 chemicals
according to the highest calculated values for the release rates for these
chemicals. Data on relevant physical and chemical properties for these
chemicals were presented to the Advisory Panel during its meeting in Menlo
Park, California, on August 26-27, 1974. From this list of 250 chemicals and
from a list: of 41 chemicals designated by the Advisory Panel as "Most Wanted
Chemicals," the members of the Advisory Panel selected 80 chemicals for Phase
II study as the chemicals with the greatest potential for environmental
effects. In Phase II of this two-phase effort, 80 chemicals having the
greatest potential for environmental effects were studied. Information was
collected on the extent of .the environmental exposure to these chemicals
(during manufacture and use) and on the possible environmental effects of this
exposure (chemical, physical, and biological properties; persistence; and
toxicity). A questionnaire survey of industry was conducted to determine the
amount and types of losses in the manufacturing plants. Information from this
survey is tabulated. The following five summary reports are submitted for
each of the 80 chemicals: (1) a flow diagram showing industrial data on the
amounts used for various applications; (2) a one-page assessment of the data
gathered on toxicology and environmental persistence; (3) a computer printout
of a tabular summary of the important data gathered; and (4) copies of the 25
most pertinent abstracts found in the area of toxicology. The report is
divided into five volumes.
The first volume contains chemicals 1-20: Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium
chloride; Benzo(a)pyrene (BAP); Tetraethyl lead; Vinyl chloride;
Hexachlorobenzene; o-Cresol; Ethylbenzene; Nonylphenol, ethoxylated (9 moles
of ethylene oxide); Hexachlorobutadiene; Vinylidene chloride; Toluene;
Ethylene dibromide; Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate; Ethylene dichloride;
Trichloroethylene; 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane; Carbon tetrachloride; Chlorinated
paraffins (35-64% chlorine); Perchloroethylene; and Dichlorodifluoromethane.
The second volume contains chemicals 21—40: Benzene (chemical uses); Silicone
fluids; Nitrobenzene; Toluenediisocyanate (TDI); Xylenes (mixed total);
Aniline; Dimethyl terephthalate; Trichlorofluoromethane; p-Dichlorobenzene;
Tetrabromoethane; Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline); Polyhalogenated biphenyls
(Aroclor 1254); Tricresyl phosphate; Fluorescent brightening agents (no. 23);
Polyvinyl chloride; Methylene chloride; Dichloropropene, Dichloropropane
mixture; and Ethyl chloride.
25
-------
The third volume contains chemicals 41-60: (Ethylenedinitrilo)tetraacetic
acid, tetrasodium salt; Benzidine; Zinc di(butylhexyl) phosphorodithioate;
N-(Dimethylpentyl)-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine; Vinyltoluene; Methyl bromide;
Mercaptobenzothiazole; Chloroform; Acetontrile; Di(ethylhexyl) phthalate; Vat
Blue Dye no. 6 (Dichloroindanthrone); Di(ethylhexyl) adipate; Dimethylamine;
Dichlorobenzidine; Hexamethylenetetramine; Acyclic xanthic acid salts (Sodium
isopropylxanthate-Dow Z-ll); Sulfolane-p-nonylphenyl manganese phosphite;
Nitrilotriacetic acid (trisodium salt); and Diarylarylenediamines (mixed)
(Wingstay 100).
The fourth volume contains chemicals 61-79: Polyacrylonitrile ' (fibers);
Naphthalene; N,N-Dimethyldodecylamine oxide; Chloroprene; Formaldehyde (37% by
weight); Bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium chloride; Methyl
chloride; Dioxane; Ethylene oxide; Allyl chloride; Ethylenimine; Phenol;
Tri (chloroethyl)phosphate; Polyethylene glycols (MW 400); Methoxye thariDl;
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid (sodium salt); Bis(chloroethyl) ether; Dodecyl
mercaptan; Polyurethane and diisocyanate resins; and Ethylene.
The fifth volume contains a listing of the references for the data collected
and general notes describing the data.
25
-------
Stephenson, M.E.
An Approach to the Identification of Organic Compounds Hazardous to the
Environmental and Human Health
National Science Foundation
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety, 1:39-48, 1977
Results are presented from a workshop ranking hazardous chemicals and
identifying key problem areas for future research. Eighty organic compounds
were ranked according to their environmental impact and their hazard to human
health. A scatter plot of the 80 compounds indicating their relative ranking
in terms of both criteria showed that 10 organohalides required immediate
study. Seven major impact or problem areas around which future research could
be organized include: (1) natural sources of organic compounds; (.°.)
contribution to biochemical and geochemical pools; (3) effects of transport
and translocation of toxic elements and micronutrients; (4) toxic degradation
products and formation of secondary pollutants; (5) remote effects; (6)
persistence in the absence of other effects; and (7) bioaccumulation. It is
also recommended that the environmental impact and human health hazard of the
carbon-chlorine bond be studied. Production figures and estimated annual
release rates for the 80 compounds are given.
27
-------
Bechmann, R.B; Carhart, H.W.; Cunningham, W.A.; et al.
System for Evaluation of the Hazards of Bulk Water Transportation of
Industrial Chemicals
National Academy of Sciences
Contract No. DOT-CG-41.680-A, 1974
An evaluation scheme, developed for the U.S. Coast Guard, to assess the
potential hazard of industrial chemicals transported in bulk by water is
presented. Each chemical is rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (which reflects
increasing hazard) on nine hazard parameters: (1) fire, (2) contact of liquid
with skin and eyes, (3) occasional short-term inhalation of vapors, (4)
occasional short-term inhalation of gases, (5) repeated inhalation of gases
and vapors, (6) human toxicity due to water pollution, (7) aquatic toxicity
due to water pollution, (8) reaction with water, and (9) self-reaction
(usually polymerization or decomposition). The human toxicity rating is based
on the oral LE>50 in a suitable mammalian species. The aquatic toxicity
rating is based on the 95-hour TLm in adult or juvenile fish from upper levels
of the food chain and includes special notations on bioaccumulation,
biochemical oxygen demand, and insolubility. An appendix evaluates potential
concentration ranges of discharged material into three selected receiving
system: (1) rivers, (2) estua.ries, and (3) coastal waters.
-------
Brown, S.L.; Cohen, J.M.; Macrae, N.I.; Small, M.J.
SRI International
Setting Priorities for R & D on Army Chemicals--Final Report
U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command
Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Contract No. DAMD17-75-C-5071; CRESS No. 56, May 1978
The Environmental Protection Research Division of the Array Medical Research
and Development Command is charged with developing the database for
environmental and occupational health criteria dealing with the manufacture,
use, and disposal of chemicals in Army activities. This report presents a
method that can assist the Army in allocating resources among candidate
research and development studies on the environmental and occupational effects
of Army chemicals.
The basis of the method is a mathematical model of the process leading from
the initial pollution of air, water, land, or the workplace to the eventual
environmental or occupational health effects of the chemicals in question.
Both environmental and occupational hazard assessment models consider the
chemical discharge source; environmental medium; concentratton as determined
by transport, transformation, .and transfer; population at risk; exposure; and
effects. Effects in humans include carcinogenicity, severe chronic toxicity,
recoverable chronic toxicity, and acute toxicity. Effects in fish include
acute and chronic toxicity. Effects are assigned a relative dollar value to
allow comparison among different chemicals. For incomplete or missing data on
a chemical, the value is estimated, assigned a default value, or assumed to be
unimportant. The model estimates a total hazard value, weighted among human
and ecological effects, with a corresponding uncertainty value due to lack of
knowledge. The allocation method then compares the reduction in hazard
uncertainty expected to be achieved after a research study with t'na cost of
the study, and ranks candidate studies according to the ratio.
29
-------
Margler, L.W.; Rogozen, M.B.; Ziskind, R.A.; et al.
Science Applications, Incorporated, Los Angeles, California
Rapid Screening and Identification of Airborne Carcinogens of Greatest Concern
in California
J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 29(11):1153-1157, 1979
The method used by the California Air Resources Board to quickly identify and
rank potentially serious airborne carcinogens is described. Eight lists of
carcinogens were compared after eliminating chemicals not used in California,
pesticides, chemicals unstable in air, or doubtful carcinogens. Further
eliminations were made if production or use was under 100,000 pounds per
year. The investigators included a few additional compounds. Candidate
substances were ranked by additive and multiplicative algorithms and by a
panel of experts. For the additive algorithm, the rating of a sabstance was
the sura of the scores of each rating factor multiplied by a weighting factor.
For the multiplicative algorithm, the substance rating equaled the product of
the rating factors. The six criteria rated were: (1) present use, (2) use
trends, (3) emission potential, (4) stability in ambient air, (5) dispersion
potential, and (6) evidence of carcinogenicity. Those compounds appearing in
the top 11 of at least two lists were selected for further study. The
substances selected were a-rsenic, asbestos, benzene, cadmium, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichlorids,
nitrosaraines, perchloroethylene, and polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons.
The authors found this screening approach efficient.
30
-------
Powers, R.; Bednarz, R.; Hurlburt, G.; Koebbe, J.A.; Kavanagh, T.
Michigan's Critical Materials Register and Chemical Hazard Assessment Program
Michigan Critical Materials Register 1930
Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Bureau
Environmental Services Division
Publication Number 4833-5324, 1980
Michigan's Critical Materials Register (CMR) system, developed to protect
water quality, is described. A list of suspect chemicals is selected annually
by an advisory committee from established priority lists and from chemicals of
concern in Michigan. The CMR list includes: inorganics, organics, pesticides,
herbicides, fungicides, pharmaceuticals, food additives, and natural materials
which may be used or discharged in Michigan. Each chemical is scored for
eight factors: (1) acute toxicity; (2) adverse effects such as chronic
toxicity, fetotoxicity, embryotoxicity, phytotoxicity, and effects of
metabolites and degradation products; (3) persistence; (4) bioaccumulation;
(5) carcinogenicity; (6) teratogenicity; (7) hereditary mutagenicity; and (3)
esthetics. Factors are weighted such that phytotoxicity, persistence, and
esthetics have maximum scores of 3, 4, and 1, respectively, and remaining
factors have a maximum score of 7. When the data are insufficient to score a
factor, an asterisk is assigned and the factor is scored as data become
available. Hazard assessment * criteria and rationale are presented for each
category. Chemicals with a cumulative score of 7 or greater are included in
the register. The hazard ranking system has been modified to incorporate
potential hazards from air pollutants. Further review of the CMR list focuses
on chemicals with the most number of asterisks ind chemicals with cumulative
scores of less than 7. Businesses are required to file an annual report on
the use and discharge of CMR chemicals. The authors note three problems in
the assessment program: (1) chemicals lacking sufficient data are not included
on the list, (2) lack of adequate chemical composition data on commer.. Lil
products causes difficulty in identifying products which may contain toxic
substances, and (3) many chemicals which may not be used in Michigan are
included on the CMR list because Michigan laws do not require reporting of
inventory data prior to chemical manufacture and use.
31
-------
United Nations Environmental Programme
Initial Report on the Priority Pollutants Project
Nairobi, October 1978
Results are presented from the initial phase of the priority pollutants
project. The objectives include: compiling a list of hazardous chemicals
which have been given priority consideration by governments and other
organizations, proposing a systematic process for selecting priority
pollutants with emphasis given to the needs of developing countries, and
identifying several lists of chemicals or categories for further United
Nations Enviroa-nental Programme (UNEP) attention. Section 2 includes a
compilation of approximately ' 230 selected substances of concern to various
national and international institutions. Section 3 discusses the general
problems associated with identifying and ranking environmental hazards. It
includes a discussion of the distinguishing features between developed and
developing areas which give rise to different sets of priorities for
environmental pollution. This section concludes by outlining the selection
criteria to be used in a ranking system for both developed and developing
areas. Criteria include exposure, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity,
teratogenicity, acute toxicity, other health effects, the influence of
nutrition and infectious disease on toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation,
and environmental agents. The method uses expert opinion, information on
structure-activity relationships, and production and environmental exposure
data in a multistage screening process where a relatively large number of
substances are considered initially. In subsequent stt?ps, a smaller subset is
selected for collection of more data and more thorough review. Se'ction 5
suggests several categories of hazardous pollutants which may be of interest
to the UNEP. For each area, an interim list of priority pollutants is
proposed.
32
-------
Brown, S.L.; Gofer, R.L.; Eger, T.; Liu, D.H.W.; Mabey, W.R.; Tus'e, D.
SHI International
A Ranking Algorithm for EEC Water Pollutants—Final Report
Contract No. ENV/223/74-EN: CRESS Report No. 136, September 1930
This report describes an algorithm used to rank 1,500 possible European
Economic Community (EEC) water pollutants for prioritization of regulatory
action on discharge limitation?. Pollutants such as persistent synthetics,
mercury, or cadmium compounds already under EEC regulation, compounds produced
or used in the EEC in amounts less than 100 metric tons per year, or compounds
which could not be idantified were eliminated from the list. The remaining
426 pollutants were then ranked by a "screening algorithm" based on
production, environmental half-life, and acute toxicity to aquatic organisms
and mammals. The top 130 compounds were then ranked using a "complete
algorithm" which incorporated information on: sources (amount produced or
consumed in ESC and estimated fraction used as an intermediate); discharges
(industrial, agricultural, domestic, commercial, water treatment, or un'x'iovn);
persistence; bioconcentration partition coefficient; acute aquatic effect
level (LC5g); chronic aquatic effect level (TC low); acute mammalian effect
level (LD^Q); chronic mammalian effect level (TD low); and chronic mammalian
effect reported (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity). Each
factor was labeled as to whether it was based on reported data or analogy to
other compounds and each factor except discharge was scored for reliability.
The authors recommend that priority regulatory attention be given to top
ranked pollutants with good reliability indexes and that additional data be
collected on pollutants with low reliability indexes before taking regulatory
action.
33
-------
Gori, G.B.
Ranking of Environmental Contaminants for Bioassay Priority
International Agency for Research on Cancer, ISS No. 16:99-111. 1977
A ranking index was developed to classify chemicals by their potential hazard
and to indicate which chemicals need to be examined first for their
carcinogenic properties. The index is based on a quantitative evaluation of
their prevalence and distribution in the environment, intake in man, and
similarity to known carcinogens. Two major indicators used to determine
carcinogenic potential are (1) exposure and intake conditions, and (2)
suspicion of activity. Exposure and intake conditions were formulated by
analyzing the number of persons exposed and the number of estimated annual
intakes per person in each subpopulation. The second indicator, suspicion of
activity, was formulated from the probability that the chemical was
carcinogenic for each intake route and the estimated relative potency of the
chemical for each intake route. Possible contamination from manufacturing
processes can affect exposure to a compound and tracing techniques ars used to
identify sources of contaminants. Forward tracing involves analyzing raw
materials of a chemical up to the intake or use by man and identifying
contaminants. Backward tracing starts by analyzing an environmental situation
and proceeding back to the cause of contamination. Forward tracing examines
chemicals with significant production while backward tracing examines
compounds with high user exposure. Another met'iod used to aid in confirming
suspicion of a chemical as a carcinogen is the chemical structure.
Carcinogenic probability and potency estimates for known compounds are
determined by an expert panel and ranked into a structure tree. New compounds
are compared to the structure tree and, for each intake route, the
carcinogenic activity is estimated based on the carcinogenic probability times
the estimated carcinogenic potency. With the information incorporated into a
single ranking index, any new compound structure may be compared and assigned
an index of suspicion. Further development of the system could lead to
identifying the carcinogenic hazard of chemicals before they are produced.
34
-------
Van NeCten, C.
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Critical Review of Strategies Aimed at Identifying Chemicals Hazardous to
Human Health and the Environment
Prepared for Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada,
March 8, 1978
Criteria are presented for evaluating the effectiveness of existing chemical
screening strategies. Environmental criteria include production and release,
distribution in the atmosphere, degradation, bioaccumulation, and toxicity, as
well as synergistic and antagonistic effects within the environment. Human
health criteria include exposure of the total population or specific groups,
distribution of the substance within the body, accumulation and excretion,
general toxicity, rautagenicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, and possible
synergistic and antagonistic effects in humans. Decision-making criteria are
used to evaluate whether the recommendations .nade by the different screening
procedures allow easy access to information so that specific decisions can be
made. Six screening methods are then assessed by these criteria. The author
suggests that an optimum combination of these methods could be derived which
would reject a maximum number of chemicals at a minimum cost.
-------
Astill, B.D.; Lockhart, H.B., Jr.; Moses, J.B.; et al.
Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York
Sequential Testing for Chemical Risk Assessment
Presented at the Second International Congress on Toxicology
Brussels, Belgium, July 6-11, 1980
A method of quantitatively evaluating environmental and health hazards ar?
presented. Four categories of effects were established: (1) the magnitude .>r
environmental exposure (ME), (2) the magnitude of human exposure (MH), (3) the
effects on human health of an exposure (H), and (4) the effects on the
environment of an exposure (E). The criteria for MH are production per year,
number of people exposed, duration of exposure, and number of groups exposed.
The criteria for ME are amount discharged per year, number of discharge sites,
number of discharges per year, and half-life in the environment. Criteria for
H are the oral ^^Q in rats, reversibility of immediate affects, and
reversibility of prolonged effects. Criteria for E are the 5-hour median
inhibitory concentration on waste water treatment microorganisms, the median
lethal concentration on fish, and the octanol-water partition coefficient as a
measure of bioconcentration potential. Each criterion is given a maximum,
median and minimum range and these are ranked 1, 2, or 3, respectively. The
cumulative health or environmental score for a compound is evaluated so that
scores of 9 or less, 10 to 13, 14 to 17, or 18 or more suggest testing levels
I, II, III, or IV, respectively. Level I testing includes physical and
chemical properties, acute health effects, in vitro mutagenesis, and acute
environmental tests. Level II includes 2-week feeding or inhalation tests,
skin painting tests, additional mutagenesis tests, activated sludge effects,
photodegradation, biodegradation, effects on plant growth and germination, and
partition coefficients. Level III includes 90-day feeding or inhalation,
fertility tests, teratology, half-life and metabolites in rodents,
nitrification inhibition, algal toxicity, 14- to 21-day biodegradation,
simulated fate study, larval fish studies, and bioconcentration factor. Le^el
IV includes 2-year feeding studies, 3-generation reproduction studies,
teratology, pharmacokinetics, biodegradation products, soil interaction, and
long-term aquatic studies. If testing is conducted, the results may then be
entered into the scoring and the total score reassessed. The authors conclude
that this screening protocol is both cost and time effective, as over 500
chemicals have been tested in 2 years.
36
-------
Nees, P.O. .
Hooker Chemical Company, Niagara Falls, New York
Assessment of Oncogenic Potential - A Scoring Matrix to Determine Oncogenic
Potential Proposed for Application in Risk Assessment
In: Toxic Substances Control, Vol. Ill - Implementing the Regulatory Program
Miller, M.L., ed. , Government Institutes, Incorporated
Washington, B.C. pp. 168-82, 1979
A scoring matrix for Oncogenic risk assessment that assigns weighted number
values to subjective and objective results of studies is described. Positive
lifetime animal studies receive a primary score of A, which is multiplied by
metabolism, route of administration, and quality of study scores. This result
is then weighted with a dose level factor and a time until tumor appearance
factor. Negative results start with a minus primary score and the time
weighting is correlated to survival. Epidemiology studies have a primary
score of 10 multiplied by specificity of tumor type, suitability of controls,
indirect association, relative risk, mixed exposure, and specificity factors,
and added to a detectability of increased cancer incidence factor. The
resulting adjusted primary score (AP) is weighted by adding AP times a dose
response factor to AP times a consistency of association factors to AP times
an exposure level factor. , There is also a weighting for repetitive
epidemiological studies to compensate for low confidence level in a single
study. Negative studies start with a primary score of 6 and have fewer
factors. For short-term genetic, microbial, and fluid assays, individual test
scores are small, positive or negative, and the only weighting factor is for
supportive data. The sum of all the scores is ranked on an index of oncogenic
potential that correlates the total score to an appropriate ra^uLilory
response. The author concludes that the scoring matrix can be used by people
with little experience. An expert review panel would be necess-t.-'/ ^nly if
questions arose. The assessment could change with the results of new studies.
37
-------
Kimerle, R.A.; Gledhill, W.E.; Levinskas, G.J.
Monsanto Co., Environmental Assessment Department, St. Louis, Missouri
Environmental Safety Assessment of New Materials
In: Cairns, J.; Dickson, K.L.; Maki, A.W.; Eds.
American Society for Testing Materials STP No. 657:132-146, 1978
A procedure is presented for evaluating the hazard to aquatic organisms of new
materials prior to their commercialization. The procedure uses environmental
fate and aquatic organism toxicity data in the saqaential phases of screening,
predicting, confirming, and monitoring to reach a decision either to continue
the toxicity testing, terminate the project because of unacceptable risk, or
cease testing because of an acceptable risk. The screening phase involves
short-term acute tests, while the predictive phase involves short- and long-
term laboratory studies. In the confirmation phase, environmental field
studies are designed to answer critical questions of environmental safaty. In
the monitoring phase, field studies under actual use conditions after
commercialization are conducted to confirm the ultimate safety of the
material. The types of tests in each phase and the criteria that determine
which specific tests are needed are presented. The criteria for evaluating
whether or not a hazard exists also are discussed.
38
-------
Booz Allen Applied Research, Inc.
A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials. Hazardous Effects and Disposal Methods
Vol. 1, 1973
A system is described for rating hazardous materials. One rating equation is
based on known data and a second rating equation is used for assessing
compounds with unknown data. The first equation is HR = TER x HER
where: HR is the hazard rating,
TER is the total effects rating,
and HER is the hazard extent rating.
TER is the sum of values assigned for air, water, and soil contaminant hazards
on human populations; effects from flame, explosion, or reaction of the
material; and toxic effects on ecological populations. Toxic effects include
acute and chronic ^£50 and TLV for air and water, and effects of contact
exposure for soil. Each factor can be weighted to reflect importance. The
score for each of the factors may be U (unknown), 1 (minimal hazard), 2
(slight to moderate hazard), or 3 (severe hazard). HER is the sum of
production and consumer distribution scores. Production scores are based on
the amount produced per year and may be U (unknown), 1 (low), 1.2.5 (moderate),
or 1.5 (large). Consumer distribution scores may be 0 (limited), 0.25
(moderate), or 0.5 (wide). Criteria for scoring TER and HER are presented.
The second equation is MPHR = (3U + TER) x HER
where: MPHR is the maximum potential hazard rating,
and 3U = a rating of 3 to each unknown to produce a conservative
hazard rati.ig.
Ratings are given for many hazardous materials used as warfare agents.
39
-------
Jones, C.J.
The Ranking of Hazardous Materials by Means of Hazard Indices
J. Hazard. Mater., 2:363-389, 1978
Several indexing models for use in landfill management, transport of dangerous
goods, environmental quality assessment, and other areas are reviewed.
Suggestions are then presented for developing a hazard index for evaluating
waste management options. The procedure involves listing the materials or
wastes of interest and the management or disposal options to be considered.
The properties of the materials or wastes which are relevant to the evaluation
process ar« obtained from the existing literature or from laboratory
measurements. A combination model appropriate to the management situation
must then be constructed. The author recommends the additive utility model,
but notes that other models may be more appropriate in certain cases. The
normalized indexes for each material and the relative utility range for each
property are derived from the data and the overall index is calculated using
the combination model. The overall indexes must reflect the actual properties
of the material in combination with the relative importance attributed to ea;h
property by the weighting factor. The author observes that I.f 'c'i = combination
model is mathematically sound, the use of an indexing and combination model
allows versatility in quantifying value judgements about aspects of a given
material's environmental behavior.
40
-------
Cramer, G.M.; Ford, R.A.; Hall, R.L.
Estimation of Toxic Hazard — A Decision Tree Approach
Food Cosmet. Toxicol., 16(3) :255-276, 1978
A procedure using 33 criteria for establishing toxic hazard is presented as a
decision tree organized into branches dealing with major chemical
classifications. The procedure is intended for use with all ingested,
structurally-defined organic and metallo-organic substances. The criteria are
based on features of chemical structure, occurrence in body tissues and
fluids, and natural occurrence in food. The logic of the tree rests heavily
on known data on metabolism and toxicity. The classification according to
presumptive toxicity can be combined with knowledge of human intake to provide
a protection index for each substance. The index can be used to establish
priorities and define tentatively the extent of appropriate testing. It is
noted that the procedure has been applied to a large number of pesticides,
drugs, food additives, and industrial and environmental chemicals of known
biological properties. Because the procedure has not yet resulted in any
underestimation of toxicity, it is seen as a practical means for
discriminating effectively among different levels of probable hazard.
41
-------
Cairns, J.; Dickson, K.L., Maki, A.W.
Estimating the Hazard of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life
Hydrobiologia, 64(2) :157-166, 1979
A conceptual framework for conducting a hazard assessment is presented.
Various toxicity tests and procedures for evaluating hazards to aquatic life
are compared, and the decision criteria used in these procedures ar^
discussed. The use of safety factors or "uncertainty factors" is discussed as
a central concept in a sequential testing approach in which estimates of
expected chemical concentrations in the environment and their effect.; can be
made with an increasing degree of accuracy. The state of the art of assessin^
hazards from chemicals to aquatic life is reviewed; safety, hazard, and risk
concepts involved in such assessments also are discussed. Particular
attention is given to hazard assessment procedures developed by the American
Society for Testing Materials, the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
and Monsanto.
42
-------
Ingrahara, T.R.; Zechel, E.M.
Selection of Candidate Substances for Control in an Environmental Regulatory
Agency
J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 29(l):38-42, 1979
A quantitative decision-making process based on the serial application of
three models and incorporating measured data and subjective judgment is
presented for selecting environmental regulation candidate substances. The
first model defines the severity of a pollution problem. Values assigned for
damage to an individual organism, concentration of the pollutant, percentage
retention of the pollutant, duration of exposure, hazard to the organism, and
the total population of organisms are multiplied to attain the tocal damage
index. The second model defines the social, economic, and political impact of
regulation. Values assigned on a scale of -5 to +5 for nine factors: (1)
public health protection; (2) employment and income stability; (3) lifestyle
changes; (4) creation of income disparity; (5) alterations in market
structures; (6) changes in regional, provincial, or national balance of
payments; (7) public acceptance; (8) effects on territorial sovereignty; and
(9) contribution to inflation, are totaled to determine Lnpact. The third
model assesses the current technological capability for implementing a
potential regulation. Values assigned to reliability, efficiency, general
applicability, dollar and manpower resources, and development in a given
period of time are multiplied to attain the magnitude of ''chft cechaological
capability. Illustrative cases are given for each model.
43
-------
Keith, L.H.; Telliard, W.A.
Priority Pollutants. I. A Perspective View
Environ. Sci. Technol., 13(4):A16-423, 1979
The historical origins of the EPA Priority Pollutants and the development of
the Priority (Water) Pollutants Protocol are related. Events are traced
beginning with the court decision in 1978 that resulted in adoption of the EPA
Consent Decree to control the levels of pollutants in industrial wastewater
discharges. Components of the decree are reviewed, including formation of the
Toxic Pollutant List to aid in the classification of harmful substances. It
is noted that, since the decree lacked allowance for time La solving
analytical problems in testing for these substances in wastewaters, the EPA
adopted four criteria to prioritize and select representative compounds from
each group. (1) All compounds specifically named on the Toxic Pollutant List
were automatically included. (The availability of chemical standards for
verification and quantification was considered mandatory. (2) Compounds not
found on the list should be tested if they accounted for 5^ or more of the
total known listing for the class of compounds. (3) All chemical praduction
data should be reviewed, where available. (4) Other sources were examined to
determine if the compound was a recognized water pollutant. Next, the
screening, Aerification, and monitoring strategy developed by the EPA for
testing water for pollutants is presented. Unresolved problems in the
screening stage are discussed, along with automated software programs being
adopted to speed up the analysis process. Future plans and first drafts for
implementation of the monitoring phase are considered, and a list of the 129
compounds on the Toxic Pollutant List is included.
44
-------
Langner, R.R.; Norwood, S.K.; Socha, G.E.; Hoyle, H.R.
Two Methods for Establishing Industrial Hygiene Priorities
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 40(12):1039-1045, 1979
Two approaches, health team rating and calculation rating, are described for
determining the health hazard of industrial chemicals and establishing
industrial hygiene priorities. In health team hazard rating, a team composed
of an industrial hygienist, physician, toxicologist, safety engineai', and
process engineer rates the degree of exposure and consequences of overexposura
to a chemical for each job classification in a facility. Degree of exposure
ratings are no contact, minor contact, occasional daily contact, and gross
contact' likely. The assessments of the consequences of overexposure are based
on acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, and available data on eye, ski-i,
inhalation, and ingestion exposures. The health team then ranks each che'TiI: i1
for each job classification on a scale of 1 to 5. Class 1 chemicals h*^ i
significant probability of a serious overexposure and require immedia-;-
investigation. Class 2 chemicals have a possibility of overexposure, but with
less severe consequences than Class 1, and should be monitored after
investigating Class 1. Class 3 chemicals have satisfactorily controlled
exposure and regular monitoring is recommended. Class 4 chemicals have only a
remote possibility of overexposure with serious consequences and require only
confirmatory monitoring. Class 5 chemicals pose no health hazard and require
no monitoring.
Calculated ratings can be used to assess the health hazard of numerous
chemicals under varying conditions and use. A formula is presented for
calculating hazard due to inhalation of gases and sapors. Parameters included
in the formula are: degree of exposure, consequences of overexposure,
atmospheric boiling point, and the maximum airborne workplace concentraL i _•> i i. .•>
which a chemical should be controlled to prevent significant adverse healc'i
affects to an employee. Degree of exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to ~~>,
including the four categories described previously plus a penalty factor or ^
that is added when the process is operated at greater than 5 atmospheres of
pressure. Consequences of overaxposure are rated on a scale of 1 to 4
according to the seriousness of employee health effects. The calculated
hazard rating corresponds to five subsequent action steps similar to those
previously described. The authors note that both approaches are based on
hazard rather than toxicity, thereby allowing appropriate establishment of
hygiene priorities. They further note that the calculated health hazard may
be a more useful method in determining regulatory action and is adaptable for
computer use for broad-based studies.
45
-------
Branson, D.R.
Prioritization of Chemicals According to the Degree of Hazard in the Aquatic
Environment
Environ. Health Perspect., 34:133-138, 1980
An aquatic hazard assessment technique is proposed for prioritizing
chemicals. Aquatic hazard is defined as the margin between the no observable
adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) and the ambient exposure concentration.
In fish, the safety margin is the NOAEC in chronic or sensitive life-stage
tests divided by the ambient exposure concentration in water. In fish eaters,
the safety margin is the acceptable daily intake of residues in fish divided
by the ambient concentration in fish. Ambient exposure concentrations may be
measured directly or predicted from a nomogram based on the ambient
concentration in fish and the ratio of relative dissipation and
bioconcentration potential. A chemical with a safety margin of 5 or higher is
classified as a priority chemical.
46
-------
Kornreich, M.R.; Nisbet, I; Fensterheim, R.; et al. ,
Clement Associates, Inc.
Priority Setting of Toxic Substances for Guiding Monitoring Programs
Contract No. OTA-C-78-372, 1980
Thirty-two previously existing priority lists for monitoring, testing, or
regulating chemicals are reviewed. The values of the lists are discussed and
a new priority system for monitoring potentially • toxic chemicals in food is
proposed. A master list of priority chemicals was comprised from established
priority lists as well as chemicals recommended for inclusion by an advisory
panel. Through panel decision, select classes of chemicals were removed from
the master list to shorten the list and concentrate on food contaminants oc
greatest concern. The chemical classes removed from the list were pesticides,
drugs, intentional food additives, chemicals not in commercial prod i~l i.M, and
chemicals with limited occurrence in the environment. The remaining organic
chemicals on the list were grouped into class categories, £.3., chlorinated
benzenes, cresols, xylenes, etc., to further reduce the list. All compounds
of each metallic 'il^nant were considered as a single group 'dad all forms of
asbestos were grouped together. The problems associated wi th such grouping
and evaluating representative chemicals from each group are discussed. The
chemicals were evaluated on exposure and biological factors. Exposure factors
included data on bioaccumirlation potential, environmental persistence,
occurrence in water, production, use pattern, occurrence in- foods, potential
for post-sale contamination, and volatility of organic chemicals. Biological
factors included acute toxicity, carcinogenic!ty, mutagenicity,
ter itogeaicity, other toxic effects, and health effects attributed to food
contamination. Weights were assigned for each factor and a total score v/a-;
conputed. Objective criteria were used to score each factor when pos'^o"!-.1
(e.g., oral LD5Q for acute toxicity), but, when necessary, subjactl ' ;
judgment from the expert panel supplemented the objective data. Problems
associated with ranking systems such as this one, e.g., unknown data, are
discussed. A separate ranking system is proposed for radionuclides.
-------
Oiler, W.L.; Cairns, T. ; Bowman, M.C.; Fishbeln, L.
A Toxicolog ical Risk Assessment Procedure: A Proposal for a
Index for Hazardous Chemicals
Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol., 9(4) :483-490, 1980
The Surveillance Index (SI) is a quantitative method to rank the potential
risk of suspect foo-1 residues for prioritization in food residue monitoring
programs. The SI is equal to the sum of the toxicity factor (TF) ,
environmental factor (SF) , and biosafety factor (BSF) (SI = TF + ,£F + BSF).
The TF is equal to the kilotons of a compound released annually into the
environment (KT) multiplied by the relative toxicity ratio (RTH) of :Ye oral
LD5Q in rats of dieldrin to the ^050 of the suspect compound. The 5? is
equal to the effective half-life (1/2E), which is calculated from the physical
half-life and biological half-life, multiplied by the sum of crop values
(CV). Values are assigned to crops in ./nich residues are likely t:o occar
based on preparation required for the commodity prior to consumption,
principal consumers, and the time interval between crop harvest and
consumption. Values are high for nonprocessed crops such as vegetables and
fruit, and low for fully processed crops. The BSF is determined by values f re
the propensity to biomagnify (PB), reactive sites in man, population at ri-.v.
(PAR), and the no observable effect level (NOEL) according to the equation 3SF
= PB x S x PAR/NOEL. To evaluate banned compounds, naturally occurring
compounds, and contaminants, a modified SI (MSI) is calculated according to
the equation MSI = (RTR x EF) + BSF. The SI is determined for several known
food residues and found Lo ne valid. The authors note that the effect of
nontoxic changes, such as usage/production, on the SI is minimal corn-Dared to
the impact of changes in toxicity data.
48
-------
McErlean, A.J.; Duke, T.W.
On the Use of Indices in Aquatic Toxicological Hazard Assessment
Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol., 1(3-4):344-354, 1931
An environmental index to assess the potential aquatic toxicity of chemicals
is described. For each environmental factor, the chemical is ranked on a
subindex scale ranging from 0 to 100. The range for each subindex scale is
determined from the highest and lowest values of its known compounds and
converted to a 0 to 100 scale. Each subindex score is raised to a power and
multipled together to calculate the total index value. The sura of the
subindex exponents equals 1 to ensure a range of 0 to 100 for the total
index. Variable weighting of the subindex exponents can be used to reflect
relative importance of individual factors. The calculated total index value
of the chemical can be compared to total index values for known compounds in
order to rank relative aquatic hazard. An example is presented using three
factors: (1) an invertebrate ^£50 toxicity test, (2) a vertebrate LC^Q
toxicity test, and (3) the octanol-water partition coefficient. The authors
note that the advantages of this technique include uti li^a^'I 11 >f existing
data and rapid identification of hazardous chemicals.
-------
Squire, R.A.
Ranking Animal Carcinogens: A Proposed Regulatory Approach
Science, 214(4523):877-880, 1931
A method is proposed for ranking identified animal carcinogens into five
classes with varying regulatory options. It is assumed that the carcinogens
hav3 been identified by testing at multiple doses and in at least two
species. Carcinogens are scored for six factors: (1) number of different
species affected, (2) number of histogenetically different types of neoplasms
in one or more species, (3) spontaneous incidence in appropriate control
groups of neoplasms induced in treated groups, (4) dose-response
relationships, (5) malignancy of induced neoplasms, and (6) genotoxicity as
measured in a battery of tests. Possible total scores range from 13 to 100.
Class I carcinogens would have total scores of 86 to 100 and the regulatory
options would be restriction or banning. Class V carcinogens would have total
scores less than 41 and there would be several regulatory options including no
action, limited use, labeling requirements, and/or public education programs.
Regulatory options on Class II, III, and IV chemicals would fall between those
for Class I and Class V chemicals.
50
-------
Schmidt-Bleek, F.; HaberJand, W.; Klein. A.W.; Caroli, S.
Steps Towards Environmental Hazard Assessment of New Chemicals (Including a
Hazard Ranking Scheme. Based Upon Directive 79/831/EEC)
Chemosphere, 1KA ) :383-415, 1982
A scheme is presented for environmental hazard ranking and bazar-5 assessment
of chemicaJs prior to marketing. Appropriate parameters of air, water, and
soil/sediment a^e scored and used to calculate effect and exposure in each
media. Effect parameters include: acute fish toxicity, acute Daphnia
toxicity, oral or inhalation 28-day mammalian toxicity, mutagenicity
screening, and skin sensitivity. Exposure parameters include use patterns,
bioaccumulat i on potential, environmental compartmenta] i zat •>' on, and
persistence. Effect and exposure point allocations are presented. Inherent
risk for each medium is determined by multiplying effect and exposure and then
is standardized. Based on the inherent risk scores as compared to known
chemicals, chemicals are then assigned to one of three categories: ("! ) white,
no immediate regulatory interest; (2} gray, keep under consideration; and (3^
black, immediate further testing required. A case i"" lustration is presented
for DDT.
51
-------
Author Index
Page
Allport, J. et al. 1977 7
Archer, S.R. et al. 1978 16
Astill, B.D. et al. 1980 36
*Bechmann, R.B. et al. 1974 23
Becker, D.S. 1978 23
*Booz Allen Applied Research, Inc. 1973 39
*Branson, D.R. 1980 46
Brown, S.L. et al. 1975 25
*Brown, S.L. et al. May 1978 29
Brown, S.L. et al. June 19*78 17
*Brown, S.L. et al. 1980 33
Cairns, J. 1979 42
Cleland, J.G. 1977 19
Cramer, G.M. et al. 1978 41
Dorsey, J.A. et al. 1977 15
Enviro Control, Inc. 1979 12
Fiksel, J. at al. 1980 14
Flinn, J.E. et al. 1974 9
Fuller, B. et al. 1976 13
*Gori, G.B. 1977 34
*Ingraham, T.R. et al. 1979 43
Jones, C.J. 1978 40
Keith, L.H. et al. 1979 44
Kimerle, R.A. et al. 1978 38
52
-------
122 IQI
EPORT DOCUMENTATION 1 REPORT NO ?. |3 R.c.p.en; , AC
PAGL EPA 560/TI I S-83-003 _. ;
1CHt5?ICAL!tSELECTION METHODS• An Annotated Bibliography, Second :5 March°atf983
Edition \\ -
. Doug Sellers^. Robert E, Janney
Reforming Organization Name and Address
TRACOR-JITCO, Inc.
1776 E. Jefferson Street
Rjockville, MD 29852
1 r,ponioring Organization Name and Adrlress
J. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 K Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
» Supplement any Notes
Supersedes first edition
I 8 Performing Organization Ren! Nc
I
I
I 10. Proiect/TasV/Work Unit No
j 05
'• 11. ContracKC) or GrsntfG' Nc
:> 68-01-6651
-I
(G)
13. Type of Report 4 Period Covered
Final
ABStraCt (Limit ?00 words)
"arsons interested in the control of toxic chemicals have exarrined and are exarinine
irethods to select choricals of concern frorr the universe of chemical substances.
Chemical selection refers to such acti\dties as priority-setting, ranl-'ine, indexing,
and sorting. These efforts have included the development of various systematic
selection methods, such as scoring systems. This annotated bibliography is intended
provide brief summaries of a variety of chemical selection methods.
'. Document Analyst* a Descriptors
b Identifiers/O-pen-Ended Terms
r COSATI Field/Grouo
I Ay.liability Sute-irnt
Release unlimited
19 Security Class (This Reoort)
Unclassified
70. Security Clus (Tim Ptgr!
Unclassified
Jl. No of Pa|es
61 ..
18'
M fOBU 77? f«-77
f NTI'j 3 *-'
-------
Author Index (Cont'd)
Page
*Kornreich, M.R. et al. 1980 47
*Langner, R.R. et al. 1979 45
Margler, L.W. et al. 1979 30
*McErlean, A.J. et al. 1981 49
Nees, P.O. 1979 37
*Nelson, N. et al. 1975 24
*011er, W.L. et al. 1980 48
Pielmeier, G.R. 1979 20
*Powers, R. et al. 1980 31
Ross, R.H. 1980 " 8
*Schmidt-Bleek, F. et al. 1982 51
*Squire, R.A. 1981 50
Stacey, G.S. et al. 1978 13
SRI 1975 22
SRI 1977 21
Stephenson, M.E. 1977 27
TSGA Literagency Testing Committee 1977 11
United Nations Environmental Programme 1978 32
Van Netten, C. 1978 35
Venezian, E.C. 1977 10
* Addition to Second Revision.
53 •
------- |