Hazard Ranking System Issue Analysis:
  Review  of Existing Ranking Systems
                MITRE

-------
Hazard  Ranking  System  Issue Analysis:
  Review of Existing  Ranking  Systems
                    Stuart A. Haus
                  Thomas F. Wolfinger
                    November 1986
                     MTR-86W180
                       SPONSOR:
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     CONTRACT NO.:
                      EPA-68-01-7054
                   The MITRE Corporation
                    Civil Systems Division
                     7525 Colshire Drive
                   McLean, Virginia 22102-3481

-------
   Department Approval:
MITRE Project Approval:
                      ^            /

-------
                              ABSTRACT
     This report presents the results of a review of two types of
ranking systems:  hazardous waste site ranking systems and chemical
hazard ranking systems.  This effort focused on identifying existing
ranking systems for review and then reviewing the identified systems
to determine whether they have features (e.g., parameters,
methodologies) that warrant further evaluation with regard to
possible modifications to the EPA Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
Where further evaluation appears warranted, that evaluation is being
conducted as part of companion studies to this effort, and the
results of the evaluation will be presented in the reports on these
companion studies, rather than in this report.  The purpose of this
report is solely to present an overview of the ranking systems that
were reviewed and to identify those features that were deemed to
warrant further study.  Twenty-nine waste site ranking systems were
identified and reviewed.  Several of those systems contain features
that should be evaluated in companion studies to this effort for
possible adaptation and use in the HRS.  Fifty-six chemical hazard
ranking systems were identified.  Twenty-four of these should be
further evaluated in the companion toxicity analysis effort.

Suggested Keywords:  Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems, Hazard Ranking
Systems, Superfund, Waste Site Ranking Systems
                                 iii

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                 Page

LIST OF TABLES                                                   vii

1.0  INTRODUCTION                                                  1

1.1  Background                                                    1
1.2  Issue Description                                             3
1.3  Scope and Approach                                            4
1.4  Organization of the Report                                    6

2.0  RESULTS OF THE REVIEW                                         7

2.1  Waste Site Ranking Systems                                    7

     2.1.1  Status of Each System                                  7
     2.1.2  Pathways Considered by Each System                    12
     2.1.3  System Features that Warrant Further Evaluation       14

2.2  Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems                              27

3.0  REFERENCES                                                   37

APPENDIX A—OVERVIEW OF EPA HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM                 43

APPENDIX B—WASTE SITE RANKING SYSTEMS                            49

APPENDIX C—CHEMICAL HAZARD RANKING SYSTEMS                      155

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES


Table Number                                                     Page

     1          List of Waste Site Ranking Systems Examined        8

     2          Migration and Hazard Pathways Reflected in        13
                Each System Examined

     3          Summary of the Results of the Review of           15
                Existing Waste Site Ranking Systems

     4          List of Identified Chemical Hazard Ranking        29
                Systems

     5          Summary of the Results of the Review of           31
                Selected Existing Chemical Hazard Ranking
                Systems
                                 vii

-------
1.0  INTRODUCTION




1.1  Background




     The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and




Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (PL 96-510) requires the President to




identify national priorities for remedial action among releases or




threatened releases of hazardous substances.  These releases are to




be identified based on criteria promulgated in the National




Contingency Plan (NCP).  On July 16, 1982, EPA promulgated the




Hazard Ranking System (HRS) as Appendix A to the NCP (40 CFR 300;




47 FR 31180).  The HRS comprises the criteria required under CERCLA




and is used by EPA to estimate the relative potential hazard posed




by releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances.




     The HRS is a means for applying uniform technical judgment




regarding the potential hazards presented by a release relative to




other releases.  The HRS is used in identifying releases as national




priorities for further investigation and possible remedial action by




assigning numerical values (according to prescribed guidelines) to




factors that characterize the potential of any given release to




cause harm.  The values are manipulated mathematically to yield a




single score that is designed to indicate the potential hazard posed




by each release relative to other releases.  This score is one of




the criteria used by EPA in determining whether the release should




be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).

-------
     During the original NCP rulemaking process and the  subsequent

application of the HRS to specific releases, a number of technical

issues have been raised regarding the HRS.  These issues concern the

desire for modifications to the HRS to further improve its

capability to estimate the relative potential hazard of releases.

The issues include:

     •  Review of other existing  ranking  systems suitable for
        ranking hazardous waste sites for the  NPL.

     •  Feasibility of considering ground water flow direction and
        distance, as well as defining  "aquifer of  concern," in
        determining potentially affected  targets.

     •  Development of a human food chain exposure evaluation
        methodology.

     •  Development of a potential for air  release factor category
        in the HRS air pathway.

     •  Review of the adequacy of the  target distance specified in
        the air pathway.

     •  Feasibility of considering the accumulation of  hazardous
        substances in indoor environments.

     •  Feasibility of developing factors to account for
        environmental attenuation of hazardous substances in ground
        and surface water.

     •  Feasibility of developing a more  discriminating toxicity
        factor.

     •  Refinement of the definition of "significance"  as it relates
        to observed releases.

     •  Suitability of the current HRS default value for an unknown
        waste quantity.

     •  Feasibility of determining and using hazardous  substance
        concentration data.

-------
     •  Feasibility of evaluating waste quantity on a hazardous
        constituent basis.

     •  Review of the adequacy of the target distance specified in
        the surface water pathway.

     •  Development of a sensitive environment evaluation
        methodology.

     •  Feasibility of revising the containment factors to increase
        discrimination among facilities.

     •  Review of the potential for future changes in laboratory
        detection limits to affect the types of sites considered for
        the NPL.

     Each technical issue is the subject of one or more separate but

related reports.  These reports, although providing background,

analysis, conclusions and recommendations regarding the technical

issue, will not directly affect the HRS.  Rather, these reports will

be used by an EPA working group that will assess and integrate the

results and prepare recommendations to EPA management regarding

future changes to the HRS.  Any changes will then be proposed in

Federal notice and comment rulemaking as formal changes to the NCP.

The following section describes the specific issue that is the

subject of this report.

1.2  Issue Description

     Since the enactment of CERCLA in 1980, a variety of ranking

systems have been developed to rate the relative threat posed by

hazardous waste sites or by hazardous substances.  Some of these

ranking systems may contain features (e.g., parameters,

methodologies) that could be adapted for use in the HRS to address

-------
some of the issues identified above.  Consequently,  these ranking


systems need to be examined as a first step in resolving these


issues.  Even where the review does not identify features that could


be adapted for use in the IKS, it may still identify some concepts


from these other systems that could be further developed to resolve


various issues.


1.3  Scope and Approach


     This paper presents the  results  of  the review  of  the  existing


ranking systems.  Two types of ranking systems were examined:  waste


site ranking  systems and chemical  hazard ranking  systems.  Waste


site ranking  systems rank the relative threat (or risk)  posed  by


waste  sites.   Chemical hazard ranking systems rank  the relative


hazard (or risk) posed by waste  streams  or individual  waste


constituents,  considering the environmental media (e.g., air,  water)


in which exposure may occur.


     The ranking systems to be examined  under this  effort  were


identified primarily through  a literature review  and also  through


contacts with other Federal agencies  (e.g., National Oceanic  and


Atmospheric Administration, Department of Defense). In addition,


the ten EPA Regional Offices  were  contacted to identify ranking

              T
systems used  by the States within  each region.  As  specified  in  the


work statement, individual States  were not surveyed.   However, where


a State system was identified by the  above review,  the State was


contacted  if  necessary to obtain a description of the  system.

-------
     Each identified waste site ranking system has been reviewed to




determine who is using the system, what it is being used for, who




developed the system, and how it both resembles and differs from the




HRS with regard to such features as parameters, methodologies,




procedures, and applications.  The objective of this review is to




identify important differences in the features of these systems that




warrant further evaluation with regard to developing options for




possible modification of the HRS.




     Where further evaluation of a feature is warranted, that




evaluation is being conducted as part of the companion HRS issue




analysis task appropriate to the specific feature being examined.




For example, parameters or methodologies applicable to the evaluation




of human food chain effects are being examined as part of the effort




to develop a human food chain exposure evaluation methodology.




Therefore, the results of such evaluations are presented in the




appropriate issue analysis report, rather than in this report.  The




purpose of this report is solely to present an overview of these




other waste site ranking systems and to identify those features of




the systems that warrant further study.




     Since the chemical hazard ranking systems pertain only to one




issue analysis effort (i.e., the development of a more discriminating




HRS toxicity factor), the intent in this report is just to identify




such systems for review under the toxicity issue analysis effort.

-------
They are not being examined to identify which of their features




warrant further review under the toxicity issue analysis effort.



1.4  Organization of the Report




     Section 2 contains the results of  the review of the existing




ranking systems, including recommendations on the features of  the




existing  systems that warrant  further evaluation in the other  HRS




issue analyses efforts.   Section 3 presents  the bibliography.




Appendix  A provides an  overview of the current HRS.  Appendix  B




contains  the  summary reviews  of 29 existing  waste  site ranking




systems.   Appendix C presents a brief summary of the 56 chemical




hazard  ranking  systems  identified.

-------
2.0  RESULTS OF THE REVIEW




     This chapter presents the results of the review of the existing




ranking systems.  The discussion is divided into two sections:  the




first addresses waste site ranking systems, the second addresses




chemical hazard ranking systems.  The emphasis in the discussion of




waste site ranking systems is on the overall comparison of these




systems to the HRS and the identification of the features of these




systems that should be evaluated further in various HRS issue




analysis tasks.  The emphasis in the discussion of the chemical




hazard ranking systems is on the identification of such systems for




further review.




2.1  Waste Site Ranking Systems




     Table 1 presents a list of the 29 waste site ranking systems




examined, together with the system acronyms used in this report.




The following sections discuss the current status of each system,




the migration pathways addressed by each system, and the features of




each system that warrant further evaluation.




     2.1.1  Status of Each System




     This section discusses the current status of the 29 ranking




systems identified in Table 1.  Of the 11 Federal ranking systems,




9 are currently being used by Federal agencies and 2 (DRASTIC and




RAPS) are being tested prior to use.




     Two of the EPA systems (RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model and the




Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model) are being used by EPA

-------
                               TABLE 1

             LIST OF WASTE SITE RANKING SYSTEMS EXAMINED


FEDERAL WASTE SITE RANKING SYSTEMS

     •  EPA Waste Site Ranking  Systems

        - DRASTIC
        - Liner  Location  Risk and  Cost  Analysis Model  (LLRCAM)
        - RCRA Risk-Cost  Analysis  Model (WET Model)

     •  Other Federal Waste  Site Ranking Systems

        - Centers for Disease  Control System for  Prevention,
          Assessment and  Control of Exposures  and Health Effects
          from Hazardous  Sites  (S.P.A.C.E.  for Health)
        - National  Oceanic and  Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA)
        - Department of Energy  Modified Hazard Ranking System  (mHRS)
        - Department of Energy  Remedial Action Priority  System  (RAPS)
        - Department of the  Air Force Hazard Assessment  Rating
          Methodology  (HARM)
        - Department of the  Air Force Hazard Assessment  Rating
          Methodology  (HARM  II)
        - Department of the  Interior Impact Scoring Methodology (ISM)
        - Department of the  Navy Confirmation  Study Ranking System
          (CSRS)

STATE WASTE  SITE RANKING  SYSTEMS

        California  Public Health Benefit/Cost  Ranking System (PHBCRS)
        Connecticut  (CT)
        Illinois Rating Scheme  (IRS)
        Massachusetts Prioritization of Environmental Risks and
        Control  Options (PERCO) System
        Michigan Site Assessment System (SAS)
        New  Hampshire (NH)
        New  Jersey Severity  Index  (NJ)
        New  York Human Exposure Potential Ranking Model  (HEPRM)

OTHER WASTE  SITE RANKING  SYSTEMS

        Arthur D. Little, Inc.  (ADL)
        Dames and Moore Rating  and Risk Assessment Methodology  (RRAM)
        Hagerty, Pavoni,  and Herr  (HPH)
        JRB Associates, Inc. (JRB)
        The  LeGrand  System (LeGrand)

                                 8

-------
                         TABLE 1 (Concluded)
OTHER WASTE SITE RANKING SYSTEMS (Concluded)

     •  Monroe County, NY, Monroe County Methodology (MCM)
     •  Olivier! and Eisenberg Assessment Methodology (OEAM)
     •  Phillips, Nathwani, and Mooij Matrix (PNMM)
     •  Rating Methodology Model (RMM)
     •  TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. Objective Calculation
        Procedure (OCP)

-------
program offices for various regulatory and policy analysis purposes.




The third EPA system, DRASTIC, is currently being tested prior to




being finalized.  (Several EPA program offices are also developing




systems that currently include elements of the draft version of




DRASTIC.)



     The three Department of Defense systems (HARM, HARM II, and




GSRS) are used to assign priorities to hazardous substance sites for




further study and possible remedial action under the DOD-wide




Installation Restoration Program.  The Centers for Disease Control



(CDC) System (S.P.A.C.E. for Health) was developed for use in public




health assessments of hazardous sites.  It is used to assign a




priority to a site based on the potential of the site to endanger




human health.  NOAA applies its system to sites that have previously




been scored with the HRS.  It is used to identify for further review




the  areas under NOAA's purview that are threatened by wastes sites.




The  DOI system  is used to assist in establishing priorities for




addressing problems associated with abandoned mine land, such as




polluted water, subsidence, dangerous highwalls, and flooding due to




clogging of streams by mine sediments.  The DOE modified HRS is




currently being used in ranking waste sites at DOE facilities.  RAPS




has  recently been completed and will soon be tested by DOE, prior to




use  in assigning priorities to DOE mixed (e.g., hazardous




nonradioactive and radioactive) waste sites for further study and




possible remedial action.
                                 10

-------
     Six of the eight State systems examined are currently in use.




A seventh, PERCO, has recently been completed and is currently being




evaluated by Massachusetts for possible implementation.  An eighth,




HEPRM, is still being developed for use in New York.  Like the




Federal agencies, the States use their systems to rank sites for




further investigation or for remedial action.  This is generally




done to supplement the HRS rankings.




     In addition to the Federal and State systems, ten systems




developed and/or used by other governmental and nongovernmental




entities were examined.  Of these, only two (Monroe County




Methodology and the Olivieri and Eisenberg Assessment Methodology)




are currently known to be in use and are discussed below.  Portions




of two other systems (JRB and LeGrand) have, however, been adapted




for use in several other systems that are also currently in use.




For example, factors contained in the JRB system have been adapted




for use in the HRS, HARM, HARM II, and CSRS.  Factors contained in




the LeGrand System have been adapted for use in the Connecticut




System and the Olivieri and Eisenberg Assessment Methodology.




     The Monroe County Methodology (MCM) is used by Monroe County,




New York to assist in identifying and prioritizing sites that may




contain hazardous substances for further investigation.  It is




intended to be used prior to the application of systems, such as the




HRS, that require site inspection data.  The Olivieri and Eisenberg




Assessment Methodology is used by the San Francisco Regional Water
                                 11

-------
Quality Control Board to rank wastes sites in terms of their

relative potential for ground water contamination.

     2.1.2  Pathways Considered by Each System

     Table 2 presents an overview of the migration and hazard

pathways addressed in each system.  The HRS addresses three migration

pathways and two additional hazard pathways:  ground water, surface

water, air, direct contact, and fire and explosion (see Appendix A).

Only two other systems examined (PERCO and HEPRM) address more

pathways, while most of the other systems address fewer pathways.

Five systems also incorporate one or more migration and hazard

pathways not present in the HRS.  These pathways include overland

water flow, flooding, toxic vapors, soil ingestion, and aquatic

biota ingestion.

     Additionally, one system (HEPRM), and possibly one other (RAPS),

distinguish between migration pathways and modes of exposure by

considering inter-media transfers of contaminants.*  (The available

documentation on RAPS does not, however, describe how this is done.)

One other system (HARM II) considers inter-media transfers from
*The term "migration pathway" generally refers to the medium through
 which the contaminants in question migrate, e.g., ground water,
 surface water, air.  In contrast, the term "mode of exposure" refers
 to the pathway through which the contaminants enter the human (or
 other) body or otherwise effect the environment.  Examples of modes
 of exposure include ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact.
 Inter-media transfer refers to the movement of a contaminant from
 one medium, through an interface, into another medium (e.g.,
 volatilization of a substance from contaminated water into the
 atmosphere where it may be inhaled).


                                 12

-------
                               TABLE 2

MIGRATION AND HAZARD PATHWAYS REFLECTED IN EACH SYSTEM  EXAMINED*

EPA Waste Site Ranking Systems
HRS
DRASTIC
LLRCAM
WET Model
Other Federal Systems
S.P.A.C.E. for Health
NOAA
mHRS
RAPS
HARM
HARM II
ISM
CSRS
State Waste Site Ranking Systems
PHBCRS
CT
IRS
PERCO
SAS
NH
NJ
HEPRM
Other Waste Site Ranking Systems
ADL
RRAM
HPH
JRB
LeGrand
MCM
OEAM
PNMM
RMM
OCP
Ground
Water

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
NA
X

X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Direct
Water Air Contact

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
X

X
X

X
X
NA
NA
X

X
X

X




X
X

X X

X
X

X

X
X


NA NA


X X
X

X X
X X
NA NA
NA NA
X X

X








X
Fire and
Explosion Other

X




X


X


NA NA


X


X X
X
NA NA
NA NA
X










X
*A blank indicates that the system does not address that  pathway.
     system does not consider migration and hazard pathways.
                                                            NA means that
                                  13

-------
ground water to surface water in counting ground water targets in

those situations where such a transfer is suspected to occur or can

be confirmed.  The other systems, including the HRS, either make no

distinctions at all, or implicitly link migration pathways and modes

of exposure.  For example, these latter systems consider only the

ingestion of contaminated water for the ground water pathway.  No

provision is made, for example, to reflect any inhalation exposure

arising, in part, from the release of volatile substances during

ground water transport or use.  At least one recent study (Foster

and Chrostowski, 1986) has indicated that the inter-media transfer

from water to air could pose a threat to individuals for certain

indoor water uses (e.g., showering).

     2.1.3  System Features that Warrant Further Evaluation

     Table 3 identifies the major characteristics of each waste site

ranking system reviewed (see Appendix B for a more detailed

description).  The table also identifies the features of each system

that warrant further evaluation in the other issue analysis

efforts.  These include:

     •  Hydrogeologic factors (such as sorption, conductivity, and
        type of media).

     •  Food chain and bioaccumulation factors.

     •  Toxicity factors (including carcinogenicity factors).

     •  Population at risk factors.

     •  Site size factors (such as exposed area).

     •  Potential for flooding factors.


                                 14

-------
                                                            TABLE  3

                   SUMMARY OF  THE  RESULTS OF  THE  REVIEW OF  EXISTING WASTE  SITE  RANKING  SYSTEMS
        SYSTEM

EPA Waste Site Ranking Systems

DRASTIC
Liner Location Risk
  Ana Cost Analysis
  Model
RCRA Risk-Cost
  Analysis Model
  (WET Model)
                               MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                •  Ranks  sites based on their hydrogeologic
                                   potential  for ground water contamination
                                •  Not  a  risk ranking system
                                •  Employs  seven hydrogeologic factors
                     •   Designed to estimate chronic risks,
                        cost/risk and cost/effectiveness
                        implications of different land disposal
                        technologies
                     •   Intended as a policy analysis model, not a
                        ranking system
                     •   Not meant for site-specific comparisons among
                        facilities
                        Designed to evaluate risk and cost aspects
                        of  different waste management practices
                        applied to different waste streams
                        Intended as a policy analysis model, not
                        a ranking system
                        Not meant for site-specific applications
Other Federal Waste Site Ranking Systems
S.P.A.C.E.
  (CDC)
for Health
Designed to aid in preventing and  controlling
health problems associated with hazardous
sites
Contains a scheme for assigning priorities
to a site based on the of a site potential
to endanger human health
                                                                                GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS
                                                   Evaluate four factors not currently
                                                   in HRS:
                                                   - Aquifer media
                                                   - Soil media
                                                   - Topography
                                                   - Hydraulic conductivity

                                                   Not applicable for ranking the
                                                   relative threat posed by CERCLA
                                                   sites
                                                   If sufficient data were available
                                                   for CERCLA sites, some of the
                                                   modeling approaches embodied in the
                                                   system might be applicable to the
                                                   development of a risk-based ranking
                                                   system

                                                   Not applicable for ranking the
                                                   relative threat posed by CERCLA
                                                   sites
                                                   If sufficient data were available
                                                   for CERCLA sites, some of the
                                                   modeling approaches embodied in the
                                                   system might be applicable to the
                                                   development of a risk-based ranking
                                                   system
Examine concept of using reports
of human health effects at a site in
the ranking of the site

-------
                                                TABLE 3  (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                          MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                                         GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Other Federal Waste Site Ranking Systems (Continued)
S.P.A.C.E.  for Health
  (CDC)  (Concluded)
NOAA
Modified Hazard
  Ranking Syatea
  (•HRS) (DOE)
Remedial Action
  Priority Syatea
  (RAPS) (DOE)
Employs four categories:
- Site characteristics
- Exposure potential  (for  five  migration
  pathways)
- Potential for human exposure
- Health effects In the population
Method for combining  factor  scores  to  derive
site scores is left up to  user

Designed to assign priorities,  for  further
review, to waste sites that  threaten
resources under trusteeship  of  NOAA
Used after HRS ranking has been completed
Not a risk ranking system
Based on three Indices:
- Proximity Index
- Resource Index
- Chemical Index

Identical to HRS except in method used  to
evaluate toxlcity factor for radionuclldes
Risk ranking system based on estimated
exposure concentrations and associated
health risks
Addresses four migration pathways:
- Overland flow
- Ground water
- Surface water
- Air
                                                                                      Review Proximity Index  and  Resource
                                                                                      Index for possible use  in food chain
                                                                                      exposure method
Evaluate method used  in  rating
radlonuclide toxlcity
Review concept of maximum  possible
exposure concentration for use in
evaluating waste characteristics

Review migration pathways  to Identify
any factors and approaches that could
be adapted for used in HRS

-------
                                                  TABLE 3 (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                           MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                                            GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Other Federal Waste Site Ranking Systems (Continued)
Remedial Action
  Priority System
  (RAPS) (DOE)
  (Concluded)
Impact Scoring
  Methodology (DOI)

Hazard Assessment
  Rating Methodology
  (HARM) (USAF)
Hazard Assessment
  Rating Methodology-II
  (HARM II) (USAF)
•  Addresses four types of exposures:
   - Dermal
   - External radiation
   - Inhalation
   - Ingestion
•  Data requirements substantially exceed
   those of HRS

•  Evaluates relative impacts of problems
   associated with abandoned mine land

•  Used to rank sites for further investigation
   based on equivalent of Preliminary  Assessment
   information
•  Site score is average of three subscores
   (receptors, waste characteristics,  and
   pathways) multiplied by a management practices
   score
•  Pathways score reflects potential for
   migration through ground water, surface
   water, or flooding
•  Subscores are not linked, i.e., surface water
   receptors may be averaged with ground water
   migration potential

•  Used to rank sites for remedial investigation
•  Considers two pathways:
   - Ground water
   - Surface water
•  Pathway score based on:
   - Potential to release
   - Human health and ecological hazard
     potential
   - Population or resource at risk
•  No further evaluation warranted
   Evaluate concepts embedded in the
   following HARM factors:
   - Potential for flooding
   - Surface soil permeability (for
     surface water pathway)
   - Data quality/confidence
   Evaluate human health and ecological
   hazard quotient and travel factors
   Evaluate use of weighted root-mean-
   square algorithm in determining
   overall site score

-------
                                                     TABLE 3  (Continued)
             SYSTEM
                                               MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                                                GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
00
      Other Federal Waste Site Ranking Systems (Concluded)
      Hazard Assessment
       Rating Methodology-II
       (HARM II) (USA?)
       (Concluded)
      Confirmation Study
       Ranking System
       (CSRS) (USN)
      State Waate Site Ranking Systems

      Public Health Benefit/         ,
        Cost Ranking System
        (California)
      Connecticut
Subscores produced for appropriate
combinations of factors, e.g., surface water
migration/human health effects
Site score is weighted root-mean-square
of subscores

Nearly Identical to HARM
Primary differences between CSRS and HARM
are in waste characteristics methodology,
waste management practices scoring, and
in use of product rather than average to
calculate overall score
Designed to rank site remedial action
alternatives in terms of benefit/cost
relationships
Benefit is defined as reduction in sum of
HRS site migration, fire and explosion, and
direct contact scores

Designed to classify sites as:
- Posing no hazard
- Requiring further investigation
- Posing an imminent hazard
Sites are classified as posing an Imminent
hazard whenever any of the following
conditions pertain:
- Improperly disposed liquid PCB wastes
- Asbestos that can become airborne
- Improperly disposed pesticides
- Contaminants disposed within 200 feet
  of a drinking water supply
   Evaluate concepts embedded In the
   following factors not  included in
   HRS:
   - Bloaccumulation potential
   - Time factors
   - Potential for flooding
   - Surface soil permeability  (for
     surface water pathway)
•  Identical to HRS, except  for cost
   factor
•  No further evaluation is  warranted
                                                                                            Evaluate concepts  embedded In the
                                                                                            sorption, gradient, and  thickness
                                                                                            factors

-------
                                                  TABLE 3  (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                           MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                                            GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
State Waste Site Ranking Systems (Continued)
Connecticut (Concluded)
Rating Scheme
  (Illinois)
Prioritization of
  Environmental Risks
  and Control Options
  (PEKCO) (Massachusetts)
   - Possible fire or explosion
   - Fish kills
   — Discharge of hazardous materials to storm
     sewers or surface water
•  Rating system applies only to potential for
   ground water contamination, using factors
   based on an adaptation of original LeGrand
   system (see below)

•  Screening tool to assist in regional planning
•  Evaluates relative human health threat posed
   by sites from ground water contamination
•  Four factors are evaluated, each consisting
   of several elements:
   - Health risk of waste and handling mode
   - Population at risk
   - Proximity of waste activity to public water
     supply wells or potable aquifer
   - Aquifer susceptibility
•  Site score is normalized sum of factors scores

•  Designed to rank sites based on chronic and
   episodic hazards to human health and the
   environment, providing a rationale for
   allocating remedial action funds
•  Four pathways are assessed for chronic hazard:
   - Air
   - Ground water
   - Surface water
   - Soil/direct contact
•  Episodic hazards consist of fire and
   explosion, toxic vapor, and floods
•  Basic measure of interest is the population/
   resources exposed to "critical" levels of
   contamination
•  Concentration data (at least one sample) for
   the site being rated or from sites similar
   to the site being rated must be available in
   order to rate the site
•  Evaluate population at risk factor
•  Other factors not appropriate for
   use in HRS
   Evaluate four concepts:
   - Use of health effects benchmarks
   - Use of data from sites similar to
     the site being rated
   - Use of simplified air dispersion
     equations to specify distance
     rings for rating the air target
     population
   - Use of a flooding factor

-------
                                               TABLE 3  (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                         MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
State Waste Site Ranking Systems  (Continued)
Site Assessment
  System (SAS)
  (Michigan)
New Hampshire
Multi-pathway ranking system designed to
reflect the relative risk posed by sites
to public health and environmental
resources
Five exposure pathways are reflected:
- Ground water
- Surface water
- Air
- Direct contact
- Fire and explosion
Site score calculated as the square root of the
sum of the squares of the pathway scores
plus a pathway-Independent chemical hazard
score
Pathway score Is the sum of a potential
exposure score and an existing exposure
score
Chemical hazard score Is evaluated based
on the following factors:
- Toxic!ty (acute, aubchronlc, chronic,
  ecological and genotoxlclty)
- Bloaccumulatlon potential
- Persistence
- Flammablllty
- Reactivity
- Data uncertainty

System designed to rank hazardous wastes
sites as high, medium, or low priority
All NPL sites are assigned a high priority
System includes factors for carcinogenic
potential and exposure potential
Presumably, the score Is based on the maximum
carcinogenic potential for the substances at
the site
                                                                                          GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Evaluate the chemical hazard rating
methodology
Evaluate method for scoring
carcinogenic potential

-------
                                                TABLE  3 (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                           MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
State Waste Site Ranking Systems (Continued)
Severity Index
  (New Jersey)
Human Exposure Potential
Ranking Model (HEPRM)
(New York)
Tool to assist in ranking sites for site
inspections based on data from a preliminary
assessment
Severity index score is product of a waste
characteristics score and an exposure
potential score
Exposure potential considers six exposure
media (e.g., ground water, air, fire/
explosion), population density/sensitive
environments, and observed exposures
Waste characteristics consider toxicity/
persistence, waste quantity, and
containment

System being developed to prioritize sites
for further investigative and remedial
actions based on their potential to impact
human health
Scores developed for 40 potential human
exposure pathways, e.g., ingestion of surface
water
Each exposure pathway score is the product of
four factors
- Chemical factor
- Target factor
- Probability of release factor
- Weighting factor
                                                                                           GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
                                                 •   No  further  evaluation warranted.
Evaluate the exposure pathways
not already considered in the
HRS, such as soil Ingestion and
aquatic biota Ingestion

-------
                                                       TABLE  3 (Continued)
              SYSTEM
                                                 MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                                                 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
      State Waste Site Ranking Systems (Concluded)
      Human Exposure Potential
      Ranking Model (HEPRM)
      (Nev York) (Concluded)
NJ
N>
Other Waste Site Ranking Systems

Arthur D. Little, Inc.          •
                                   Each of the above  four factors are based on
                                   other factors  which vary according to pathway
                                   being scored
                                   Exposure pathways  are grouped into four
                                   media:
                                   - Air
                                   - Soil
                                   - Ground water
                                   - Surface Water
                                   Score for each medium is the sum of
                                   appropriate exposure pathway scores
                                   Site score is  sum  of the medium scores
                                         Developed as a modification of  the  MRS
                                         Addresses three pathways:  ground water,
                                         surface water, and air
                                         Site score is the  sum of  the pathway values
                                         Three factor categories are evaluated within
                                         each pathway:
                                         - Health effects
                                         - Waste reaching pathway
                                         - Population exposed
                                         Health effects category is based on toxicity
                                         of the contaminants on the site
                                         "Waste reaching pathway"  category is evaluated
                                         based on evidence  of release in all pathways
                                         or,  alternately, on "route characteristics"
                                         in ground water and surface water pathways
                                         Population exposed category is  very similar
                                         to HRS targets category
                                         Overall pathway score is  the product of
                                         category values.
ADL system was assessed during the
development of the HRS
No further evaluation is warranted

-------
                                                 TABLE 3  (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                           MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
Other Waste Site Ranking Systems (Continued)
Rating and Risk
  Assessment Methodology
  (Dames and Moore)
Hagerty, Pavonl, and
  Herr System (HPH)
Methodology for Rating
  the Hazard Potential
  of Waste Disposal Sites
  (JRB model or Rating
  Methodology Model)
Adaptation of JRB Associates, Inc.  methodology
(see below)
Uses same four rating categories, with some
additions and deletions
Each category Is classified as low or high
risk
Overall site classification based on rating
category classifications
Six site classifications ranging from very
low risk to very high risk

Intended to rate potential ground water
Impacts from landfllllng of wastes
System produces two separate rankings
based on:
- Waste characteristics
- Site and target characteristics
Five factors from the PHL model (see Table 5)
are used to rank waste characteristics
Ten factors are used to rank potential of a
landfill to Impact ground water

Consists of 31 rating factors grouped Into
4 areas:
- Receptors
- Pathways
- Waste characteristics
- Waste management practices
Each rating factor Is scored on a scale of
0 to 3 and then multiplied by a factor-
specific multiplier
Overall site score Is normalized sum of
factor scores
                                                                                           GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
                                                    No further evaluation warranted
•  No further evaluation warranted
•  JRB model was assessed during
   the development of the HRS
•  No further evaluation Is warranted

-------
                                                           TABLE 3 (Continued)
                  SYSTEM
            MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
          Other haste Site Ranking Systems (Continued)
          The LeGrand Sye ten
            (LeCrand)
NJ
•C-
         Monroe County
           Methodology (MCM)
 •  Designed  to evaluate the acceptability of a
    proposed  disposal site based on the
    potential for ground water contamination
    at  the  site
 •  Evaluation process provides for human judgment
 •  System  produces a vector of site
    characteristics
 •  Site characteristics are based on the
    following factors:
    - Distance between contamination source
     and water supply
    - Depth to water table
    - Water table gradient
    - Permeability-sorption
    - Confidence in accuracy of results
    - Miscellaneous Identifiers
 •  One additional factor is developed based on:
    - Degree  of aquifer sensitivity (type of
     underlying material)
    - Degree  of contaminant severity (either
     source  of the waste or type of waste)
•   Vector adjusted according to a baseline to
    form a situation rating
•   Situation  rating is used to qualitatively
   assess the probability of contamination and
    the degree of acceptability of the site

•  Intended as an initial step in identifying
   and ranking sites for further investigation
•  Sites are Identified and classified into
   six site activity categories:
   - Identifiable
   - Possible
   - Unspecified
   - Lagoons
   - Auto junkyards and salvage areas
   - Suspicious
                                                                                                     GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS
   Evaluate concepts embedded  in the
   permeability-sorption  factor, the
   aquifer sensitivity  factors  and the
   water table gradient factor
   Evaluate concept for including a
   qualitative assessment of the
   accuracy of the rating results
•  Evaluate geologic ranking system

-------
                                                             TABLE 3  (Continued)
                     SYSTEM
                                                       MAJOR  CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                                                        GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
             Other Waste Site Ranking  Systems  (Continued)
             Monroe County
               Methodology (MCM)
               (Concluded)
NJ
Ln
Olivier! and Elsenberg
  Assessment Methodology
Geologic ranking Is prepared,  based on the
following factors:
- Overburden geology
- Estimated permeability
- Relief/geomorphology
- Depth to ground water
- Ground water gradient
- Bedrock character
- Soil properties
- Texture and behavior
Sites that could Impact nearby wells are
Immediately referred to authorities for
testing
Other sites are assigned a priority using
a matrix for ranking geologic  and land use
impact, size, and type of activity

Ranks organic solvent hazardous wastes
sites in terms of relative potential for
ground water contamination
Corresponds to the HRS ground  water pathway
Sites are ranked with regard to two areas:
- Site sensitivity
- Contamination severity
Site sensitivity rates the susceptibility
of the site to ground water contamination
using 14 hydrogeologlc and water use factors
in four factor categories based on LeGrand
Contamination severity rates the severity
and potential for release from the site to
contaminate ground water using nine factors
in three factor categories (four of the
factors are based upon the Michigan Site
Assessment System)
                                                                                                •  Factors warrant further evaluation

-------
                                                TABLE  3  (Continued)
        SYSTEM
                                          MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                                           GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Other Waste Site Ranking Systems  (Continued)
Olivier! and Eisenberg
  Assessment Methodology
  (Concluded)
Phillips,  Nathwanl,  and
  Mooij Matrix
  (PNM Matrix)
 The  scores for each factor are summed to
 give site sensitivity and contaminant
 severity ratings
 Overall site scoring method is user specific,
 usually taken as sum of factor scores

 Designed to rank potential ground water
 impacts from the land disposal of wastes
 The  PNM matrix produces three types of
 rankings:
 - Waste hazardousness ranking
 - Soil-site ranking
 - Combined waste-soil-site ranking
 Ten  factors (four of which are modified
 from the PHL model summarized in Table 5)
 are  used to rank the relative hazardousness
 (in  ground water) of wastes that might be
 land disposed
 The  six factors not included in the PNL
 model that are used to rank waste
 hazardousness are:
 - Chemical persistence
 - Sorption
 - Viscosity
 - Solubility
 - Acidity/basicity
 - Waste application rate
 Seven other factors (six of which are
modified from the LeGrand Model) and an
 infiltration factor are used to rank the
potential of a land disposal site to result
in impacts to ground water
 The 17 factors are combined in a matrix to
rank the waste-soil-site Interaction
Factors in PNM matrix are not
adequately defined for inclusion in
the HRS
No further evaluation is warranted

-------
                                                 TABLE 3  (Concluded)
        SYSTEM
                                           MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
Other Waste Site Ranking Systems (Concluded)
Rating Methodology Model
Objective Calculation
Procedure (OCP)
Developed based on the JRB model
Designed to evaluate the risk of hazardous
waste sites and to produce a single score
reflecting this risk
Incorporates four types of factors:
receptors, pathways, waste characteristics,
and waste management practices
Scores are determined for each of several
evaluation parameters then multiplied by
weighting factors to form site parameter
scores
These scores are summed and normalized to
form a site score.

Calculation equation designed to estimate
the total risk from a waste site over a
defined time period
Equation reflects the potency of chemicals
released, the relationship between ambient
concentrations of the chemicals and the
Ingestlon/lnhalatlon rates of the chemicals,
population and the exposure concentration
                                                                                           GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
•  No further evaluation Is warranted
•  No further evaluation Is warranted

-------
2.2  Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems




     As stated earlier, the principal objective in reviewing chemical




hazard ranking systems is to identify systems for more comprehensive




review in the toxicity issue analysis effort (DeSesso et al., 1986).




A total of 56 chemical hazard  ranking systems have been identified




and are listed in Table 4.




     Fifty-two of these systems were identified from two




comprehensive reviews of  chemical hazard ranking systems  (Environ




Corporation, 1984 and Hushon and Kornreich,  1984).   These  two




reviews examined 23 and 34  systems respectively; 5  systems were




duplicated within the two sets of reviews.




     To illustrate the different approaches  that have been used  to




rate chemical hazards among the various systems and to illustrate




the types of systems that are  and are not being recommended for




review in the  toxicity issue analysis effort,  7 of  the 56 identified




 systems  are  briefly reviewed in this report  (see Appendix C).  The




major  characteristics of  these 7 systems and the conclusions from




 the review are  presented  in Table 5.




     As  indicated in Table 5,  four of these  seven systems should be




 evaluated further:




      •  CERCLA Reportable Quantities (RQ)




      •  Clement  Associates, Inc.




      •  RCRA Hazardous Waste Scheduling Methodology




      •  Superfund Public  Health Evaluation (SPHE) System
                                  28

-------
                                               TABLE  4

                     LIST OF  IDENTIFIED CHEMICAL HAZARD RANKING SYSTEMS


EPA Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems                                                  EC*   HK    I)     C

Action Alert System                                                                   X                X
CERCLA Reportable Quantities (RQ)  System                                                               X
KCRA Hazardous Waste Scheduling Methodology                                                            X
Superfund Public Health Evaluation (SPHE)  System                                                        X
Selected Criteria Processing                                                          X
Assessment of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste  Treatment, Storage and Disposal       X
The &CRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model                                                      XXX
Toxiclty Scoring System Using RIECS Data Base                                          X
Integrated Environment Management  Program                                              X
OTS Chemical Scoring System                                                           X
Pesticide Manufacturing Air Prloritization                                                  X
Index of Exposure                                                                           X
System for Rapid Ranking of Environmental  Pollutants                                         X
TSCA-ITC Scoring System Workshop                                                            X
Scoring of Organic Pollutants                                                               X
1TC Scoring for Biological Effects                                                          X
1TC Scoring for Exposure                                                                    X
OECD Ecotoxicology Testing Scheme                                                           X
Chemical Scoring System Development                                                         X
Environmental Scoring of Chemicals                                                          X
Ordering of Commercial Chemicals on NIOSH  Suspected Carcinogens List                         X

Other Federal Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems

U.S. Army Hazard Multi-Media Estimating and Ranking Scheme                            X
U.S. Army System for Setting Priorities for R&D on Army Chemicals                            X
U.S. Coast Guard                                                                            X
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)                                                    X
National Science Foundation                                                                 X
National Cancer Institute                                                                   X
OTA                                                                                         X
*EC:  Reviewed in Environ Corporation, 1984
 HK:  Reviewed In Hushon and Kornrelch, 1984
  B:  Also reviewed in Appendix B
  C:  Reviewed separately in Appendix C

-------
                                        TABLE  4 (Concluded)


 Other  Federal  Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems (Concluded)                             EC*   M    £     —

 NIOSH  National Occupational  Hazard Survey                                                    X
 NIOSH  Identification  of High Risk Occupation Groups and Industrial Processes                 X

 State  Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems

 Alaska                                                                                X
 California                                                                             X
 California Air Resources  Board                                                               X
 Louisiana                                                                              X
 Maryland                                                                               X
 Michigan                                                                               X     X
 Rhode  Island                                                                           X
 Washington                                                                             X

 Foreign Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems

 EEC Ranking Algorithm for Water Pollutants                                             X     X
 UNEP                                                                                         X
 Federal Republic of Germany                                                                  X
 French Ministere de 1'Environment                                                            X

 Other Chemical Hazard Ranking Systems

 Barring Model                                                                          XX          X
 Clement Associates                                                                                      X
 PHL Model                                                                              XX          X
 Chemical Manufacturers Association                                                     X
 Dow Chemical                                                                           X
 Soap & Detergent Association                                                           X
 American Paper Institute and National Forest Products Association                      X
 National Paint and Coatings Association                                                X
 Weyerhauser Corporation                                                                X
 Eastman Kodak Company                                                                        X
 ASTM, Committee D-19                                                                         X
 Flavor and Extract Manufacturer's Association                                                X
 Hooker Chemical                                                                              X
R. Squire                                                                                    X
*EC:  Reviewed in Environ Corporation, 1984
 HK:  Reviewed in Hushon and Kornreich, 1984
  B:  Also reviewed in Appendix B
  C:  Reviewed separately In Appendix C

-------
                                                         TABLE  5

         SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS  OF THE REVIEW OF SELECTED EXISTING  CHEMICAL  HAZARD RANKING SYSTEMS
        SYSTEM

Action Alert Systc
   (AAS)
Barring Model
CERCLA Reportable
  Quantities (RQ) System
        MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

Developed as a preliminary  screening tool
for use in assigning priorities to chemicals
for further study or regulatory action based
on the potential risk they  pose to humans and
aquatic life, based upon  partial Information
about their presence in the environment and
the associated potential  hazards
Screening provides either a qualitative
indication of the degree  of concern
warranted for each chemical or a specification
of the additional data required to make such a
determination

Designed to Identify a representative list
of hazardous substances and to rank, the
effects of these substances in terms of
air, water, and land pollution hazards
Total effects rating (TER)  calculated as
weighted sum of four factor values:
- Toxic effects to human  and other populations
- Flammable hazard
- Explosive hazard
- Reactive hazard
Hazard extent rating (HER)  based on annual
production and consumer distribution of the
hazardous substances
Hazard rating - TER x HER

Determines the minimum quantity of a
hazardous substance spill or release that
must be reported to EPA under CERCLA
Substance assigned an interim RQ for each for
the following charateristlcs:
- Reactivity
- Ignitabillty
- Acute toxlcity
- Aquatic toxlcity
- Chronic toxlcity
     GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

AAS Is not applicable to ranking  the
potential threat posed by hazardous
waste sites
No further evaluation Is warranted
Considered in the development of
more recent ranking models
No further evaluation warranted
System should be evaluated further

-------
                                                      TABLE 5  (Continued)
              SYSTEM

      CtRCLA Reportable
        Quantities  (RQ) System
        (Concluded)
U)
      Clement Associates, Inc.
        MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

Statutory RQ is minimum of interim RQs adjusted
to account for persistence of  the substance
in the environment
Reactivity la evaluated based  on the ability
of the substance to react with water and/or
Itself
Ignltabillty Is evaluated based on the flash
point and boiling point of the substance
Acute toxlcity Is evaluated based on the
or LI>50 of the substance administered by
IngestIon, inhalation or dermal contact, as
applicable
Aquatic toxiclty is evaluated  using the LC50
of the substance
Chronic toxiclty Is evaluated  based on a
overall minimum effective dose (MED) of the
substance and numerical assessment of the
severity of the effects caused by repeated
or continuous expsoure

The methodology provides a score for a
pollutant that represents the  relative
probability that a given hazard will occur
in exposed populations per unit dose of the
pollutant
Effects scored for each pollutant are
carclnogeniclty, teratogenicity, reproductive
toxlcity, mutagenlcity, hepatotoxiclty, renal
toxiclty, neurobehavloral toxicity and effects
In other organ systems
The score Is a product of two  measures of risk:
- Probability that the pollutant is toxic
  to humans, based on inferences from
  animal data, or on direct measures of
  human toxiclty
- Probability of occurrence of the toxic
  effect in exposed humans per unit dose
  of exposure, assuming that the agent
  is a human toxicant
                                                                                                 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
•  System should be evaluated further

-------
                                                            TABLE 5 (Continued)
                  SYSTEM
          PHL Model
          RCKA Hazardous Waste
            Scheduling Methodology
U)
          Superfund Public Health
            Evaluation  (SPHE)
            System
           MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

•  Designed to rank the hazardousness of
   substances placed in landfills
•  The model consists of five ranking factors
   that are summed:
   - Toxicity (based on Sax)
   - Ground water toxicity
   - Disease transmission potential
   - Biodegradability
   - Mobility
•  Computational equations are used to assign
   a value to each factor

•  Ranks the toxic potential of waste constituents
•  Incorporates measures of both acute and chronic
   toxicity:
   - LD^Q is used as a measure of acute toxicity
   - Chronic toxicity designated as Equivalent
     Dose Estimate (EDE)
•  EDE based on acceptable daily intakes (ADIs)
   for noncarcinogens and unit cancer risks
   (UCRs) for carcinogens, modified as
   necessary by uncertainty factors
•  For compounds with extremely limited data
   bases, EDEs are assigned by analogy to
   structurally similar compounds or are
   estimated by applying a large standardization
   factor to a measure of acute toxicity
•  Constituent score is the sum of the chronic
   toxicity score (0 to 9) plus the acute toxicity
   score (1, if acute toxicity is high, 0
   otherwise)

•  Method for estimating the public health
   impacts of NPL sites
•  Method for selecting indicator chemicals was
   examined as a chemical hazard ranking system
     GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Considered in the development of
more recent ranking models
No further evaluation is warranted
System should be evaluated further
Approach to deriving toxicity
constants should be evaluated
further

-------
                                                TABLE 5  (Concluded)
        SYSTEM

Superfund Public Health
  Evaluation (SPUE)
  System (Concluded)
        MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

Uses an "Indicator score" to identify Indicator
chemicals; this Is the product of the measured
(or estimated) concentration of the chemical
at the site times a "toxlclty constant" (In
units of Inverse concentration)
Separate toxlclty constants for carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenlc effects
Acute toxlclty not considered
Noncarcinogenlc toxlclty factors based on
quotient of minimum effective dose (MED) and
severity factor (RVe)
Carcinogenic toxlclty constants based on
effective doae to 10 percent of exposed
population
Other factors considered subjectively include:
- Persistence
- Weight of evidence for carcinogenlcity
- Water solubility
- Vapor pressure
- Henry's constant
- Organic carbon partition coefficient
                                                                                           GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

-------
All of these four systems, except the SPHE system, address acute

toxlclty.  All but the RQ system address carcinogenic effects.  All

four address chronic noncarclnogenlc effects.  The RQ system assigns

a relative ranking value to hazardous substances based on several

hazard characteristics including toxicity, reactivity, and

ignitability.  The Clement Associates, Inc. system assigns a relative

risk ranking to chemicals that represents the relative probability

that a given hazard (e.g., cancer) will occur in exposed populations

per unit dose of the chemical.  The RCRA system ranks chemicals for

acute toxicity based on their LDc0* and for chronic toxicity based

on their acceptable daily intake or unit cancer risk, as applicable.

The SPHE system assigns an indicator score to chemicals based on

chronic toxicity, distinguishing between carcinogens and

noncarcinogens, using a methodology based in part on the RQ system.

(See Appendix C for more details about these systems.)

     The other three systems reviewed (Action Alert, Barring Model,

PHL Model) were found not to warrant further study.  The Action Alert

System is designed as a planning tool for qualitatively ranking

chemicals for further study or regulatory action based on the

potential risk they pose to humans and to aquatic organisms.  It is

not intended to rank the relative hazard of the various chemicals.

The Barring and PHL Models are very early ranking systems that were
*The LD50 represents the dose of a substance that is lethal to
 50 percent of the test population.

                               35

-------
considered in the development of more recent chemical hazard  ranking




models and do not warrant any further evaluation.




     In addition, 20 of the 23 systems contained in the Environ




Corporation review  (1984) warrant further evaluation.  The 3 that do




not warrant further evaluation are  those 3  discussed above.  None of




the 34 systems  contained in the Hushon and  Kornreich review  (1984)




warrant further evaluation.  Many of these  latter  34 systems are




designed  solely as  screening tools  for use  in  assigning priorities




to chemicals, especially new chemicals or suspected  carcinogens, for




further study.   They are not meant  for, nor are  they applicable to,




rating the relative hazard of chemicals for use  in regulatory




programs.  Most of  the other systems within this set of 34 are




intended  to select  or  identify chemicals for regulation or control




based on  such factors  as production rates and  use  patterns.




      It  should be noted that many of the waste site  ranking  systems




 reviewed  in Appendix B also contain factors to rate  chemical hazard.




 Those systems whose chemical hazard rating  factors warrant further




 evaluation (e.g., Michigan Site Assessment  System, U.S. Air  Force




 HARM II System) are identified  in Appendix  B.
                                  36

-------
3.0  REFERENCES

A. D. Little, Inc., Proposed Revisions to MITRE Model, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA, September 23, 1981.

A. D. Little, Inc., PERCO;  A Model for Prioritization of
Environmental Risks and Control Options at Hazardous Waste Sites,
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA, September 12, 1983.

Barnthouse, L. W. et al., Development and Demonstration of a Hazard
Assessment Rating Methodology for Phase II of the Installation
Restoration Program, ORNL/TM-9857, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
TN, 1986.

Berger, I. S., "Determination of Risk for Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites," Proceedings of the National Conference
on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on
November 29-December 1, 1982 in Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials
Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1982, pp. 23-26.

Bois, R., Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, personal communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE
Corporation, September 18, 1986.

Clement Associates, Inc., Toxics Integration Program;  Scoring of
Selected Pollutants for Relative Risk, Washington, DC, June 26, 1981.

Dames and Moore, Overview of Methodology for Rating the Potential for
and Significance of Ground and Surface Water Contamination from Waste
Disposal Sites, Bethesda, MD, Undated.

DeSesso, J. et al., Hazard Ranking System Issue Analysis;  Toxicity
as a Ranking Factor (Draft Report), MTR-86W128, The MITRE
Corporation, McLean, VA, September 1986.

Dlugosz, Edward and Alan Ingham, "The California Ranking System,"
Proceedings of the National Conference on the Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on November 4-6, 1985 in
Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute,
Silver Spring, MD, 1985, pp. 429-431.

Dupee, Brook S., Environmental Health Risk Assessment Unit,
Memorandum to Brian C. Strohm, Assistant Director, Division of Public
Health Services, New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare,
May 18, 1984.
                                 37

-------
Dupee, Brook S., Environmental Risk Assessment Unit, New Hampshire
Department of Health and Welfare, personal communication to Stephen
Lubore, The MITRE Corporation, March 8, 1985.

Dupee, Brook S., Environmental Risk Assessment Unit, New Hampshire
Department of Health and Welfare, personal communication to
Thomas F. Wolfinger, The MITRE Corporation, September 13, 1985.

Engineering-Science, Comparison of U.S. Air Force Hazard Assessment
Rating Methodology (HARM) with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) at Four Air Force Bases Evaluated under
the Phase I Installation Restoration Program, Engineering-Science,
Atlanta, GA, April 1983.

Environ Corporation, Review and Analysis of Hazard Ranking Schemes,
Final Report, May 11, 1984.

Environ Corporation, Documentation for the Development of Toxicity
and Volume Scores for the Purpose of Scheduling Hazardous Wastes,
Final Report, Washington, DC, March 28, 1985.

Environmental Monitoring and Services, Inc., Technical Background
Document  to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102,
Volume 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1985.

Foster, Sara A.  and Paul C. Chrostowski, "Integrated Household
Exposure  Model for Use  of Tap Water Contaminated with Volatile
Organic Chemical,"  (86-12.3), presented at the 79th Annual Meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association, held in Minneapolis, MN,
June  22-27, 1986, Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA,
1986.

French, Jean G.  et al., A System for Prevention, Assessment, and
Control of Exposures and Health Effects from Hazardous Sites
 (S.P.A.C.E. for  Health), Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA,
January 1984.

Gibb,  J., M. Barcelona, S. Schock, and M. Hampton, Hazardous Waste
in Ogle and Winnebago Counties;  Potential Risk via Groundwater Due
to Past and Present Activities, Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources, Document No. 83/26, Springfield, IL, 1983.

Hawley, K. A. and B. A. Napier, A Ranking System for Sites with Mixed
Radioactive and  Hazardous Wastes,  (Comment Draft). Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, June 1985.
                                  38

-------
Hushon, Judith and Mary Kornreich, Scoring Systems for Hazard
Assessment, Hazard Assessment of Chemicals:  Current Developments,
Vol. 3, pp. 63-109, Academic Press, Inc., 1984.

IGF Incorporated, Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual,
(Draft), ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC, October 1, 1985.

ICF Incorporated, The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model Phase III Report,
ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC, March 1, 1984.

ICF Incorporated, The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model Phase III Report
Appendices, ICF Incorporated, Washington, DC, March 1, 1984.

Iverson, Christine et al., Site Assessment System (SAS) for the
Michigan Priority Ranking System under the Michigan Environmental
Response Act (Act 307,P.A. 1982), Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI, November 1983.

Katz, Sherry, U.S. Department of Energy, Germantown, MD, personal
communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE Corporation, September 18,
1986.

Kay, Robert L. Jr. and Chester L. Tate, Jr., "Public Health
Significance of Hazardous Waste Sites," Proceedings of the Fifth
National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites, held on November 7-9, 1984 in Washington, DC, Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1984,
pp. 232-238.

Kloo, Kenneth J., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
letter and attachments to Wayne Praskins, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 30, 1986.

Kufs, Charles et al., Methodology for Rating the Hazard Potential of
Waste Disposal Sites, (Draft Final Report), JRB Associates, Inc.,
McLean, VA, May 5, 1980a.

Kufs, Charles et al., "Rating the Hazard Potential of Waste Disposal
Sites," Proceedings of the National Conference on Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on October 15-17, 1980 in
Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute,
Silver Spring, MD, 1980b, pp. 30-41.

LeGrand, Harry E., A Standardized System for Evaluating Waste-
Disposal Sites;  A Manual to Accompany Description and Rating Charts,
National Water Well Association, 1980.
                                 39

-------
LeGrand, Harry E., "System for Evaluation of Contamination Potential
of Some Waste Disposal Sites," JAWWA, 1964, pp. 959-974.

Life Sciences, Inc., Briefing on Human Exposure Potential Ranking
Model (HEPRM), Workshop on Prioritization Techniques/Ranking Models,
Oak Ridge Associated Universities, July 15, 1986.

Luecker, Elizabeth B., "Navy Assessment and Control of  Installation
Pollutant (NACIP) Confirmation Study Ranking Model,"  Proceedings
of the Twelfth Annual Environmental Systems Symposium,  held on
May 20-21, 1982 at Langley Air Force Base, Langley, VA, American
Defense Preparedness Association, Arlington, VA, 1982.

Luecker, Elizabeth, NEESA, Port Hueneme, California,  personal
communication to  Stuart Haus, The MITRE Corporation,  April 11,  1985.

Males, Eric, "RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model," presented at the  AIChE
Conference held on August 21, 1984, U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, 1984.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1984 Review Report Michigan
Site Assessment System, Michigan Department of Natural  Resources,
September 1984.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Appendix C;   Guidance to
SAS Model Application, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
July 1985.

Murphy, Brian L.,  "Abandoned Site Risk Assessment Modeling and
Sensitivity  Analysis," Proceedings of the National Conference
on Management of  Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,  held on
November  29-December 1, 1982 in Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials
Control Research  Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1982,  pp. 396-398.

Napier, B. A. and K. A. Hawley, "A Ranking System for Mixed
Radioactive  and Hazardous Waste Sites," Proceedings of  the Fifth DOE
Environmental Protection Information Meeting, (CONF-841187), held at
Albuquerque, NM,  November 6-8, 1984, U.S. Department  of Energy,
Washington,  DC, April 1985.

Nelson, Ann  R., Louise A. Hartshorn, and Richard A. Young,
A Methodology to  Inventory, Classify, and Prioritize  Uncontrolled
Waste  Disposal  Sites  (EPA-600/4-83-050). Environmental  Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
NV,  October  1983.
                                  40

-------
Nelson, Ann B. and Richard A. Young, "Location and Prioritizing of
Abandoned Dump Sites for Future Investigations," Proceedings of the
National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites, held on October 28-30, 1981 in Washington, DC, Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1981,
pp. 52-62.

Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine
Services, National Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, April 1984.

Olivieri, Adam W. et al., Assessment of Contamination from Leaks of
Hazardous Materials in the Santa Clara Basin 205j Report, San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, SEEHRL University of
California, Berkeley and Santa Clara Valley Water District,
February 1985.

Olivieri, A. W. and D. M. Eisenberg, "A Methodology for Ranking Risk
of Groundwater Contamination from Hazardous Material Sites," ASCE
National Conference on Environmental Engineering, Los Angeles, CA,
June 25-27, 1984.

Rothenstein, Cliff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, personal communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE
Corporation, September 22, 1986.

Roycroft, Dianne, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Groundwater Quality Division, personal communication to Thomas F.
Wolfinger, The MITRE Corporation, August 1985.

Seller, L. and L. Canter, Summary of Selected Ground Water Quality
Impact Assessment Methods, National Center for Ground Water Research,
Report No. NCGWR 80-3, Norman, OK, 1980.

Slimak, Mike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
personal communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE Corporation,
September 18, 1986.

State of Connecticut 208 Program, Hazardous Waste Site Evaluation
Manual, (1076-J80-80), prepared by TRC, Environmental Consultants,
Wethersfield, CT, 1980.

Tennessee Valley Authority and Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
A National Inventory of Abandoned Mine Land Problem;  An Emphasis on
Health, Safety, and General Welfare Impacts, prepared for the
Departments of Interior and Energy, 1983.
                                  41

-------
Thornhill, Jerry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK,
personal communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE Corporation,
September 19, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DRASTIC;  A Standardized
System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using
Hydrogeologic Settings, (EPA-600/2-85/018), Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, May 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Liner Location Risk and Cost
Analysis Model, (Draft Report), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, January 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, An Approach to Prioritization
of Environmental Pollutants;  The Action Alert System, Final Draft
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1980  (revised
January 1982).

Unites, Dennis, Mark Possidento, and John Housman, "Preliminary Risk
Evaluation for Suspected Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites  in
Connecticut," Proceedings of the National Conference on  Management
of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on October 15-17, 1980
in Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials Control Research  Institute,
Silver Spring, MD, 1980, pp. 25-29.

Whelan, G. et al., "Development of the Remedial Action Priority
System:  An Improved Risk Assessment Tool for Prioritizing Hazardous
and Radioactive-Mixed Waste Disposal Sites," Proceedings of the Sixth
National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites, held on November 4-6, 1985 in Washington. DC. Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1985,
pp. 432-437.
                                 42

-------
                             APPENDIX A




                OVERVIEW OF EPA HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM






     The Hazard Ranking System  (HRS) is used by EPA to estimate the




relative potential hazard posed by releases or threatened releases of




hazardous substances.  The HRS migration score, which is described




below, is one of the criteria used in determining whether the release




or threatened release should be placed on the National Priorities




List.  This appendix presents an overview of the HRS.  A more detailed




description appears as Appendix A to the National Contingency Plan




(40 CFR 300) and in the Federal Register (47 FR 31180, July 16, 1982).




     The HRS addresses three hazard modes:  migration, fire and




explosion, and direct contact.  The latter two are not used in




computing the migration site score which is a criteria for placement




on the NPL, but are included in the HRS as indicators of the need for




emergency response.  The migration mode consists of three potential




migration pathways representing the major routes of environmental




transport common to hazardous wastes sites:  ground water, surface




water, and air.  Each route is structured similarly using three




factor categories:  release, waste characteristics, and targets.




     The release category reflects the likelihood that the site has,




is, or will release contaminants to the environment.  If available




monitoring data indicate that the site is releasing contaminants,
                                 43

-------
then an "observed release" has been demonstrated.*  If no such

observed release can be demonstrated, then the release category is

evaluated using route characteristics and containment factors.  These

factors are largely physical characteristics of the sites and their

surrounding environments.  It is important to note that the ground

water and surface water routes contain factors for route

characteristics while the air route does not.  This permits sites to

be evaluated for their potential to release contaminants to these two

pathways in cases where documentation of a release is lacking.  The

current HRS requires that ambient air monitoring data support the

conclusions that the site is, or has been, emitting contaminants

before the site can receive a nonzero air route score.

     The waste characteristics category reflects the implicit hazard

of the contaminants that have been or might be released.  The factors

included in the waste characteristics categories address qualitative

and quantitative characteristics of the wastes and waste contaminants

found on the sites.  The targets category constitutes a measure of

the population and resources that might be adversely affected by a

release.  The factor categories and the factors contained in them are

illustrated in Table A-l.
*Information other than ambient monitoring data can be used to
 establish an "observed release" in certain situations.  These
 situations are addressed on a case-by-case basis.


                                 44

-------
                                            TABLE A-l

                                       HRS RATING FACTORS
                                                            Route
  Factor Category
   Ground Water
    Surface Water
         Air
Release Category
Waste Characteristics
Targets
Monitoring data
      or
Depth to aquifer
  of concern
Net precipitation
Permeability
Physical state
Containment
Toxicity/persistence
Waste quantity
Ground water use
Distance/population
Monitoring data
      or
Facility slope and
  terrain
Rainfall
Distance to receiving
  water
Physical state
Containment

Toxicity/persistence
Waste quantity
Surface water use
Distance/population
Distance to sensitive
  environment
Monitoring data
Reactivity/incompatibility
Toxicity
Waste quantity

Land use
Distance/population
Distance to sensitive
  environment

-------
     Within each route, the site is assigned a value for each



applicable factor.  The factor values are then multiplied by



weighting factors and summed within factor categories.  The resulting



factor category values are then multiplied and normalized to form a



migration route score.  Thus, for each site, three migration route



scores are produced, each on a scale of 0 to 100.  These route



scores are as follows:



     •  Ground water (S  )
                       gw


     •  Surface water (S  )
                        sw


     •  Air (S )
              a


The overall site migration score (S ) is then calculated as the
                                   m


root mean square (RMS) of the route scores:



           Sm = (l/1.73)[(Ssw)2 + (Ssw)2 + (Sa)2]1/2



The RMS procedure was chosen to emphasize the highest scoring route



while giving some consideration to secondary and tertiary routes.



This procedure is illustrated in Figure A-l.
                                 46

-------
  Observed Release
     0 or 45 pts
        OR
 Route Characteristics
  and Containment*
      0-45 pts
                               Waste Characteristics
GW -      0-26 pts
SW -      0-26 pts
A   -      0-20 pts
Targets
GW -
SW -
A -
0-49 pts
0-55 pts
0-39 pts
                                                               Pathway Score
                                                                                                 0-100 pts
                                                                                                Normalized
' Not Included in Air Pathway
                                                          GW = Ground Water Pathway
                                                          SW = Surface Water Pathway
                                                          A   = Air Pathway
                                                 FIGURE A-1
                                         BASIC MRS STRUCTURE

-------
                             APPENDIX B
                     WASTE SITE RANKING SYSTEMS

     This appendix summarizes 29 systems developed for use in ranking
waste sites.  Table 1 in Section 2 lists the systems reviewed.  The
summary presented for each system in this appendix contains information
on the following topics:
     •  Name
     •  User
     •  Developer
     •  Use/Status
     •  General Description
     •  Similarities to HRS
     •  Differences from HRS
     •  Conclusions
     •  References
The appendix is divided into four sections:
     B.I  EPA Waste Site Ranking Systems
     B.2  Other Federal Waste Site Ranking Systems
     B.3  State Waste Site Ranking Systems
     B.4  Other Waste Site Ranking Systems
B.I  EPA Waste Site Ranking Systems
     This section contains summaries of three EPA ranking systems:
     •  DRASTIC
     •  Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model
     •  RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model
                                 49

-------
                                DRASTIC
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
 SIMILARITIES TO MRS:
DRASTIC

Developed for use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency

National Water Well Association

DRASTIC is intended to be used to evaluate
the relative vulnerability of areas to ground
water contamination.  A draft version of
DRASTIC was completed in May 1985 and is
currently being tested in 10 counties
nationwide.  Several EPA program offices
(e.g., underground storage tanks) have
implemented systems based on the draft
version of DRASTIC.

DRASTIC is designed to evaluate the relative
ground water pollution potential of any
hydrogeologic setting or area.  DRASTIC uses
seven rating factors to compute an index (the
DRASTIC Index) which indicates the relative
vulnerability of an area to ground water
contamination.  The seven rating factors are
as follows:
                           Depth to Water (D)
                           Net Recharge (R)
                           Aquifer Media (A)
                           Soil Media (S)
                           Topography (slope) (T)
                           Impact of the Vadose Zone (I)
                           Hydraulic Conductivity of the Aquifer  (C)
Each factor is assigned a weight based on its
relative importance with regard to its
pollution potential.  The DRASTIC Index  is
calculated by multiplying the value assigned
to a rating factor by its weight and  summing
the resulting value for the seven factors.

DRASTIC is intended to evaluate relative
ground water pollution potential.  As such  it
corresponds to the HRS ground water route
characteristics category.  Three of the
                                 50

-------
                         DRASTIC (Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
(Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
DRASTIC rating factors are similar to factors
present in the HRS ground water route
characteristics category:

•  Depth to Water
•  Net Recharge
•  Impact of Vadose Zone

The scoring and weighting of these factors
differ, however, from the HRS.

DRASTIC is not intended to evaluate the
relative threat posed by a waste site since
it does not consider waste characteristics,
waste containment, or targets.  Further,
DRASTIC addresses only the potential for
ground water contamination, ignoring the
potential for surface water, air, and soil
contamination.  The following four of the
DRASTIC rating factors do not correspond to
any factors present in the HRS ground water
route characteristics category:

•  Aquifer Media
•  Soil Media
•  Topography
•  Hydraulic Conductivity of the Aquifer

The rating factors in DRASTIC need to be
further evaluated for possible inclusion in
the HRS.
REFERENCE:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
DRASTIC;  A Standardized System for
Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential
Using Hydrogeologic Settings,
(EPA-600/2-85/018), Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK,
May 1985.

Thornhill, Jerry, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ada, OK, personal
communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE
Corporation, September 19, 1986.
                                 51

-------
             LINER LOCATION RISK AND COST ANALYSIS MODEL
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:



USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste

Sobotka & Co., ICF, Inc., Environ Corp.,
Pope-Reid Associates, Inc., and Geraghty &
Miller

The model is intended only for internal EPA
use.  It is available through the EPA National
Computer Center and is currently being used
by several EPA program offices.  Portions of
the model are still being evaluated.  The
model also is currently being revised for use
in evaluating municipal landfills.

The Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis
Model is designed to investigate cost/risk
and cost/effectiveness implications of the
land disposal of hazardous wastes under
different technology, location, and waste
stream scenarios.  The model estimates the
relative chronic risk to human health from
land disposal facilities with different
design technology, location, and waste stream
characteristics.  The model also estimates
the cost of facilities with differing
technologies and sizes.  The model uses a
series of submodels to predict contaminant
releases, subsurface and atmospheric
transport, human exposure, and health risks
based upon dose-response factors.  The model
embodies both numerous simplifying
assumptions (e.g., homogeneous and isotropic
aquifers) and generic parameters (e.g.,
generic ground water flow fields, generic
well distances, generic contaminant mobility
classes, generic design technologies).

The Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis
Model is not similar to the HRS.  The only
common characteristics are that both address
waste disposal, relative risk, and two common
pathways (air and ground water).
                                 52

-------
       LINER LOCATION RISK AND COST ANALYSIS  MODEL (Concluded)
DIFFERENCE FROM HRS:
CONCLUSION:
REFERENCES:
There are considerable differences between
the two systems.  First, the liner location
model is not a ranking system.  It is
primarily a policy analysis model.  Second,
it is not meant for site-specific comparisons
among facilities, nor can it be easily
adapted for such site-specific use.  Third,
it directly calculates relative risk using a
process modeling approach and some generic
configurations.

The Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis
Model is not applicable to the task of
ranking CERCLA sites.  The approaches
embodied in the model could, however, be
employed in developing a relative risk-based
ranking system, providing sufficient data
for use in such an approach were available
for CERCLA sites.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Liner
Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model,
(Draft Report), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1985.

Rothenstein, Cliff, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, personal
communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE
Corporation, September 22, 1986.
                                 53

-------
                   RCRA RISK-COST ANALYSIS MODEL
SYSTEM:


USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model, also known as
the WET Model

Economic Analysis Branch, Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ICF Incorporated

Currently used by the EPA Office of Solid
Waste in assessing policies developed under
RCRA.

The WET model is designed to evaluate waste
management practices in the U.S. as an aid
to the development of regulations under
RCRA.  The model produces relative risk and
cost estimates for different management
configurations of waste streams; waste
transportation, treatment and disposal
technologies; and environments (hence the
acronym Waste, Environment, ^technology).
The model estimates human health, ecosystem
and sensory risks from steady state releases
of RCRA contaminants (and selected other
contaminants) to ground water, surface water
and air.  The model also calculates the
costs of each technology in a management
configuration as an annual revenue
requirement.  The model treats each
management configuration in a generic
fashion employing standard risk assessment
methods (e.g., emissions estimates coupled
with transport and fate models aligned with
dose response models) and numerous
simplifying assumptions.

The WET model is not similar to the HRS.
Nearly the only common characteristics is
that both address waste disposal, relative
risk, and the same three pathways.

There are considerable differences between
the two systems.  First and most important,
the WET model is not a ranking system.  It
                                 54

-------
              RCRA RISK-COST ANALYSIS MODEL (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   is a policy analysis model.  Second, the WET
(Concluded)             model is not a site-specific model nor can
                        it be easily adapted for site-specific use.
                        Finally, the model apparently assumes that
                        the generic sites are designed and operated
                        according to RCRA promulgated or proposed
                        regulations.  Very few CERCLA sites would
                        fit this assumption.

CONCLUSIONS:            The WET model is not applicable to the task
                        of ranking CERCLA sites.  The approaches
                        embodied in the model could be employed in
                        developing a relative risk-based ranking
                        system, providing sufficient data for use in
                        such an approach were available for CERCLA
                        sites.

REFERENCES:             IGF Incorporated, The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis
                        Model Phase III Report, IGF Incorporated,
                        Washington, DC, March 1, 1984.

                        IGF Incorporated, The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis
                        Model Phase III Report Appendices, ICF
                        Incorporated, Washington, DC, March 1, 1984.

                        Males, Eric, "RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model,"
                        Presented at the AIChE Conference held on
                        August 21, 1984, U.S. Environmental
                        Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1984.
                                 55

-------
B.2  Other Federal Waste Site Ranking Systems




     This section contains summaries of eight systems developed by




Federal agencies other than EPA for use in ranking sites for




investigation and possible remedial action.  The systems examined are




as follows:




     •  S.P.A.C.E. for Health (CDC)




     •  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Method




     •  mHRS (DOE)




     •  RAPS (DOE)




     •  HARM (USAF)




     •  HARM II (USAF)




     •  ISM (DOI)




     •  CSRS (USN)
                                 56

-------
                     CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
SYSTEM:



USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:


GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
System for Prevention, Assessment, and
Control of Exposures and Health Effects from
Hazardous Sites (S.P.A.C.E. for Health)

Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

Centers for Disease Control

Used by CDC in support of public health
assessments of hazardous sites.

The S.P.A.C.E. for Health system was
developed by CDC to assist State and local
health official in preventing and controlling
health problems associated with hazardous
sites, including hazardous wastes sites.
The system contains a prioritization
scheme.  The purpose of the scheme is to
assign a site priority based on the
potential of the site to endanger human
health.  The scheme is based on four factors:
site characteristics, exposure potential of
five pathways, potential for human exposure/
absorption, and health effects in the
population.  The elements contained in these
factors are listed in the Table B-l.  The
method for combining the score for each
element to form a site score is left to the
discretion of the analysts using the scheme.
The scoring of the various elements is
recommended to be done by a team of experts
that includes at a minimum an environmental
specialist, a toxicologist, and a physician
and/or epidemiologist.

Both are value-based systems addressing most
of the same environmental pathways.  Both
are designed to make effective use of
available information, without requiring
extensive new information collection.
Several of the elements in S.P.A.C.E. for
Health have been excerpted directly or
adapted from the HRS (e.g., toxicity,
persistence, containment, waste quantity,
ground water, surface water).
                                 57

-------
                              TABLE B-l

  FACTORS AND  ELEMENTS ADDRESSED  IN THE  S.P.A.C.E FOR HEALTH SYSTEM


      FACTORS                              ELEMENTS

Site Characteristics       Documentation of presence of hazardous
                             substances
                           Toxicity of five most hazardous substances
                             at site
                           Quantity of five most hazardous substances
                             at site
                           Persistence of five most hazardous
                             substances at site
                           Concentrations of five most hazardous
                             substances at site
                           Site management and containment
                           Potential for direct access to site

Exposure Potential         Ground water
of Environmental           Surface water
Pathways                   Air
                           Deposition in(on) soil off site
                           Presence in food chain

Potential for Human        Presence of potentially exposed population
Exposure/Absorption        Basis of evidence for human exposure/
                             absorption
                           Levels of substances through biological
                             sampling

Health Effects in          Allegation/reports of health effects
Exposed Population         Results of clinical or epidemiologic
                             studies conducted
                           Expectation of a currently observable
                             health effect
                           Expectation of a future health effect
                           Severity of public health impact of
                             presumed health effect
                                 58

-------
               CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL  (Continued)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
The differences between the two systems are
significant.  The most important difference
between the two is that S.P.A.C.E. for Health
makes use of health effects information for
the population exposed around the site in the
rating process.  It uses clinical data and
biological sampling data, as well as
allegations/reports of health effects, in the
rating of several elements under both the
potential for Human Exposure/Absorption and
Health Effects in Exposed Population factors.
This type of information is not typically
utilized in the HRS.  S.P.A.C.E. for Health
is also a more subjective system than the
HRS, e.g., allegation/reports of health
effects are assigned a score of one even if
they are "vague, nonspecific, poorly
characterized allegations."  The system also
depends more on expert judgment as indicated
above.  Further, the assessment of threat is
based on five substances present at the site
rather than on one as in the HRS.  Finally,
S.P.A.C.E. for Health does not contain an
algorithm to calculate the overall site score
from the element scores; the determination of
the overall score is left to the user's
discretion.

Several of the factors in S.P.A.C.E. for
Health have been derived from the HRS and do
not warrant any further evaluation.  However,
the concept of using human health effects
information, particularly observed human
health effects potentially associated with
the site, warrants further evaluation.  For
example, the idea embodied in S.P.A.C.E. for
Health of employing alleged and substantiated
health effects information for the surrounding
population to aid in prioritizing sites
should be examined.  This type of information
is frequently the spur to site identification
and initial assessment.
                                 59

-------
               CENTERS  FOR DISEASE  CONTROL  (Concluded)
REFERENCES:             French, Jean G. et al.,  A System for
                        Prevention,  Assessment,  and Control of
                        Exposures and Health Effects from Hazardous
                        Sites (S.P.A.C.E.  for Health),  Centers for
                        Disease Control, Atlanta,  GA, January 1984.

                        Kay,  Robert  L., Jr.  and  Chester L.  Tate,  Jr.,
                        "Public Health Significance of  Hazardous
                        Waste Sites," Proceedings  of the Fifth
                        National Conference  on Management of
                        Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,  held  on
                        November 7-9, 1984 in Washington, DC,
                        Hazardous Materials  Control Research
                        Institute, Silver  Spring,  MD, 1984,
                        pp.  232-238.
                                 60

-------
           NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCE FROM HRS!
CONCLUSIONS:
Untitled

Ocean Assessments Division, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Ocean Assessments Division, NOAA

The system has been applied to sites that
have previously been scored with the HRS.
The purpose is to identify, for further study
by NOAA, those sites that appear to pose a
threat to resources under the trusteeship of
NOAA (as defined by CERCLA).

The system consists of three indices:
Proximity Index, Resource Index, and
Chemical Index.  The Proximity Index is a
measure of the frequency with which various
concentrations of contaminants from a site
would reach the resource.  The Resource
Index is a measure of the value and extent
of utilization of the marine resource.  The
Chemical Index is a measure of the toxicity
and persistence of the most hazardous
substance that could migrate from the site.

The Chemical Index is derived from the HRS
toxicity/persistence factor.

While comparable to the HRS Surface Water
Use Factor, the Resource Index emphasizes
fishery and aquatic habitat uses rather than
the broad range of activities addressed in
the HRS.  The Proximity Factor combines data
on the concentration of contaminants in the
resource with data on the frequency of
release (e.g., flooding).

The three indices are not intended to
constitute a hazardous site ranking system.
Rather they are intended to assist in
assigning priorities to previously ranked
sites for further review by NOAA.  The
Proximity Index and the Resource Index
                                 61

-------
     NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:            should be reviewed as part of any development
(Concluded)             of a food chain exposure methodology for the
                        HRS.  However, it is unlikely that they would
                        be adequate for use in the HRS in their
                        present form.

REFERENCES:             Ocean Assessments Division, Office of
                        Oceanography and Marine Services, National
                        Ocean Services, National Oceanic and
                        Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Hazardous
                        Waste Site Review, April 1984.
                                 62

-------
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - mHRS


  Modified Hazard Ranking System (mHRS)

  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

  Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)

  The mHRS was developed for DOE.  It is
  currently being used by a number of DOE
  facilities to rank the threat posed by waste
  sites.

  The Modified Hazard Ranking System was
  developed by PNL for DOE to address the
  concern expressed by DOE that the HRS reflects
  only the chemical hazard of radioactive
  isotopes and neglects the hazard posed by the
  radiation from such isotopes.  The mHRS works
  within the framework of the HRS dividing the
  Waste Characteristics components of the HRS
  pathways into two subcomponents for radioactive
  and chemical wastes.  The chemical wastes
  subcomponent of the mHRS is identical to the
  HRS waste characteristics component.  The
  radioactive waste subcomponent is more complex.

  To use the mHRS, the analyst identifies the
  radionuclides present in the site and
  determines their "dose factor group."  The
  assignment of a radionuclide to a dose factor
  group is based on a dose factor calculated
  using the ONSITE/MAXI1 program.  The dose
  factor was calculated separately for each
  radionuclide of concern and mode of exposure
  (e.g., inhalation and ingestion).  If
  concentration data are available (pCi/L) for
  the radionuclides, the radioactive waste value
  is read from a matrix table.  The rows reflect
  dose factor groups, the columns reflect the
  ambient concentration and the entries give the
  rankings.  If no concentration data are
  available, the maximum potential concentrations
  are calculated using simplified transport
  equations and then are used with the above
  table.  These equations are used only for the
                                 63

-------
              DEPARTMENT  OF ENERGY - mHRS  (Concluded)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS;
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
ground water, surface water, direct contact,
and fire and explosion routes.  No provision
is made for estimating potential
concentrations for the air route.

The mHRS is designed to be embedded within
the HRS.  With the exception of the
radioactive waste characteristics scoring
mechanism, the mHRS is identical to the HRS.

The only difference between the two systems
is the radioactive waste characteristics
scoring mechanism.

The mHRS radioactive waste scoring mechanism
should be evaluated for possible inclusion
in the HRS.  Also, the concept of using
simplified transport equations to assess the
maximum possible exposure concentration
should be evaluated.

Napier, B. A. and K. A. Hawley, "A Ranking
System for Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous
Waste Sites," Proceedings of the Fifth DOE
Environmental Protection Information Meeting,
(CONF-841187), held at Albuquerque, NM,
November 6-8, 1984, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, DC, April 1985.

Hawley, K. A. and B. A. Napier, A Ranking
System for Sites with Mixed Radioactive and
Hazardous Wastes, (Comment Draft), Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA,
June 1985.

Katz, Sherry, U.S. Department of Energy,
Germantown, MD, personal communication to
Carol Burger, The MITRE Corporation,
September 18, 1986.
                                 64

-------
                     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - RAPS
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
Remedial Action Priority System (RAPS)

Developed for use by the Department of Energy

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)

The system has been completed and will be
tested on two facilities in the fall of
1986.  Use by DOE facilities is reported to
be anticipated in the spring of 1987.

The Remedial Action Priority System (RAPS)
is designed to assess the risk posed by
mixed (radioactive and nonradioactive
hazardous) waste sites and to prioritize the
sites for further investigation and remedial
action.  RAPS employs relatively simple
transport, transformation and fate models to
assess the risks posed to sensitive receptors
by releases of contaminants.  Four transport
and transformation pathways are covered in
RAPS:  overland water flow, air, surface
water, and ground water.  Four additional
modes of exposure are also reflected in the
system:  external dermal contact, external
radiation dose, inhalation, and ingestion.
A hazard potential index is calculated for
each pathway reflecting the risks associated
with that pathway.  Sites/pathway
combinations are then ranked using
appropriate hazard potential indices.  The
site pathway ranks are then combined to form
an overall site rank.  The details of these
combinatorics are not discussed in the
available reference documents.

The only important similarity between RAPS
and the HRS is that both address the ground
water, surface water, and air pathways.  Of
lesser significance is that both utilize
some of the same data but in different
fashions.
                                 65

-------
               DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - RAPS (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
RAPS is very different from the HRS.  RAPS is
expressly designed to assess the relative
risks posed by sites.  It employs transport,
transformation and fate models to relate the
characteristics of the site to the risks
posed to receptors of concern.  In contrast,
the HRS is a value-based ranking system that
indirectly reflects risk.

RAPS should be reviewed in detail (when its
documentation becomes available) to determine
whether any of the modeling techniques used
in it can be adapted for use in the HRS.

Whelan, G. et al., "Development of the
Remedial Action Priority System:  An Improved
Risk Assessment Tool for Prioritizing
Hazardous and Radioactive-Mixed Waste
Disposal Sites," Proceedings of the Sixth
National Conference on Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on
November 4-6, 1985 in Washington, DC,
Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1985,
pp. 432-437.

Katz, Sherry, U.S. Department of Energy,
Germantown, MD, personal communication to
Carol Burger, The MITRE Corporation,
September 18, 1986.
                                 66

-------
                 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM)

U.S. Air Force (USAF) in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP)

Jointly developed by the USAF Occupational
Environmental Health Laboratory, Air Force
Engineering Services Center, Engineering
Science, and CH2M Hill

Used to rank sites for follow-up site
investigations and confirmation activities
under Phase II of the IRP.

HARM is a site ranking system designed to
rank sites for priority attention.  The
system is designed to use data developed
during the Record Search (Phase I) portion
of the IRP.  Record Searches in the IRP are
the near equivalent of the EPA Preliminary
Assessments.

The overall procedure for developing a HARM
site score is illustrated in Figure B-l.
The HARM score is composed of four subscores
reflecting the receptors potentially at
risk, the waste and its characteristics
present at the site, the potential migration
pathways, and waste management practices at
the site.

Table B-2 lists the rating factors and
multipliers used to develop the receptors
score.  The overall receptor score is the
normalized sum of the rating factor scores
on a scale of 0 to 100.

The waste characteristics subscore is
calculated as the product of a waste factor,
a persistence factor and a physical state
factor.  The waste factor is evaluated using
a matrix approach based on the quantity of
wastes present, the level of confidence in
the information, and the degree of hazard
                                 67

-------
    Start
                      RECEPTORS
                                                                 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Apply
Multiplier


Calculate
Receptor
Subscore


Determine
Waste
Quantity/
Hazard Score


Apply
Persistence
Factor


Apply
Physical State
Factor


Calculate
Waste Char.
Subscore


oo
                         Other\Flooding
                        Potential
                        Pathways,
                                                                WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES   ,
                                                                                       H
Apply
Containment
Multiplier
Factor


Final
Rating
Score
     Source:   Engineering-Science,  1983.
                                                 FIGURE B-1
                          HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FLOW CHART

-------
                              TABLE B-2

                    HARM RECEPTOR RATING FACTORS


         Rating Factor                                     Multiplier

Population within 1,000 feet of site                            4

Distance to nearest well                                       10

Land use/zoning within 1-mile radius                            3

Distance to reservation boundary                                6

Critical environments within 1-mile radius of site             10

Water quality of nearest surface water body                     6

Ground water use of uppermost aquifer                           9

Population served by surface water supply within                6
  3 miles downstream of site

Population served by ground water supply within                 6
  3 miles of site
Source:  Engineering-Science, 1983.
                                 69

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM (continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO MRS:
posed by the wastes.  The degree of hazard
is the maximum of scores for toxicity,
ignitability and radioactivity.

The pathway score is calculated as the
maximum of a ground water migration potential
score, a surface water migration potential
score, a flooding score, a direct evidence
of migration score, and an indirect evidence
of migration score.  The direct or indirect
evidence of migration factors are assigned
scores of 100 or 80, respectively, when
applicable evidence indicates that migration
has occurred.  Otherwise, they are assigned
scores of 0.  The factors and multipliers
used to evaluate surface water and ground
water migration potential are listed in
Table B-3.  Each factor is evaluated on a
scale of 0 to 3 and multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier.  The applicable
factor scores are then summed and normalized
to a scale of 0 to 100.

Waste management practices are evaluated
using the following table:

•  No containment:  1.0
•  Limited containment:  0.95
•  Fully contained and fully in
   compliance:  0.10

The overall site score is the average of the
receptor score, the waste characteristics
score and the pathways score multiplied by
the waste management practices score.

There are numerous similarities between HARM
and the HRS.  Both address ground water and
surface water contamination.  Both include
provisions for assessing evidence of releases
as well as potential for releases.  Both
also address the characteristics of the
wastes present on the site and the targets
(or receptors) potentially at risk from the
site.  Finally, the two systems have many

         70

-------
                              TABLE B-3

              HARM PATHWAY POTENTIAL TO RELEASE FACTORS


Rating Factor                                              Multiplier

Surface Water Migration

     Distance to nearest surface water                          8
     Net precipitation                                          6
     Surface erosion                                            8
     Surface permeability                                       6
     Rainfall intensity                                         8

Ground Water Migration

     Depth to ground water                                      8
     Net precipitation                                          6
     Soil permeability                                          8
     Subsurface flows                                           8
     Direct access to ground water                              8

Flooding                                                        1
Source:  Engineering-Science, 1983.


                                 71

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM (Continued)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:    similar rating factors; however,  the specific
(Concluded)             criteria for evaluating these rating factors
                        are somewhat different in the two systems.
                        The factors that are similar include:

                           Size of target population
                           Distance to nearest well
                           Land use in potentially affected area
                           Critical environments
                           Water quality/use
                           Waste quantity
                           Contaminant persistence
                           Physical state of wastes
                           Distance to receiving stream
                           Net precipitation
                           Permeability
                           Waste containment
                           Rainfall intensity

DIFFERENCE FROM HRS:    Despite their similarities, HARM and the HRS
                        are very different systems, both in terms of
                        structure and purpose.  Broadly speaking,
                        the purpose of HARM is to rank sites for
                        further investigation based on the equivalent
                        of EPA preliminary assessment data.  The HRS
                        is designed to rank sites for further study
                        and possible remedial action based on site
                        inspection data (see also HARM II).

                        Further, the structures of the two systems
                        are different.  The HRS treats three
                        migration pathways, evaluating each
                        separately and then combining the migration
                        route scores to from an overall site score
                        using a root-mean-square approach.  In
                        contrast, HARM aggregates receptors and
                        waste characteristics independent of
                        migration pathway.  Further, HARM addresses
                        only migration via water pathways (i.e.,
                        ground water, surface water and flooding)
                        and does not consider the air migration
                        pathway.  HARM also does not address the
                        potential for direct contact with waste
                        materials.
                                 72

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM (Continued)
DIFFERENCE FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
HARM also evaluates the overall site score
differently from the HRS.  HARM employs
the average of the receptor, waste
characteristics, and pathway scores,
multiplied by the waste management practices,
in contrast to the HRS which multiplies
these scores and normalizes them to form
pathway-specific scores.  Overall, HARM
evaluates a site based on the total of all
potential targets, the most hazardous
compound present on the site, the highest
migration route score and the degree of
waste management.  Thus, in HARM, a site can
achieve a high score for targets threatened
by ground water contamination,  using
contaminants that cannot migrate through the
ground water, based on their potential to
migrate through surface water,  modified by
either ground water or surface  water
containment practices.

Finally, HARM contains some factors not
included in the HRS:

•  Potential for flooding
•  Degree of surface erosion
•  Subsurface flows (whether the bottom of
   site is located in the ground water)
•  Potential for direct access  to ground
   water (e.g., fractures, faults, faulty
   wall casings)
•  Surface soil permeability (for the
   surface water pathway)
•  Confidence in data on the wastes and
   waste quantity present on site

The concepts embedded in the following HARM
factors should be examined further (the
factors themselves are generally not well
enough defined for use in the HRS):

•  Potential for flooding
•  Surface soil permeability
•  Data quality/confidence
                                 73

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM (Concluded)
REFERENCES:             Engineering-Science, Comparison of U.S.
                        Air Force Hazard Assessment Rating
                        Methodology (HARM) with U.S. Environmental
                        Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System
                        (HRS) at Four Air Force Bases Evaluated
                        under the Phase I Installation Restoration
                        Program, Engineering-Science, Atlanta, GA,
                        April 1983.

                        Material from unpublished Air Force
                        briefings.
                                 74

-------
                DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM II
SYSTEM:


USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology II
(HARM II)

U.S. Department of the Air Force (USAF)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

HARM II is used by the USAP in their
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) to
assign priorities to sites for follow-up
assessment and field studies.

HARM II has been developed by ORNL as an
extension of the HARM system.  It is
designed to make use of site-specific
monitoring data.  HARM is not designed to
use such data.  HARM II addresses two
exposure pathways; ground water and surface
water.  Within each pathway, the site is
assigned a score for potential to release
contaminants (pathway score), human health
and ecological hazard potential (contaminant
hazards scores), and population or resources
at risk (receptor scores).  The various
factors used in the scoring are listed in
Table B-4.  The system then produces a
subscore for each appropriate combination of
pathway score, contaminant hazards score,
and receptors score, i.e., a surface
water-health pathway score, a surface
water-ecological pathway score, ground
water-health pathway score, and surface
water-ecological pathway score.  These
subscores are then combined using a weighted
root mean square algorithm to form the site
score.

The principal similarities between HARM II
and the HRS lie in the pathways common to
both (surface water and ground water) and in
the types of factors addressed by both.  The
specific factors used in HARM II are tailored
to the needs of the USAF.  The two systems
                                 75

-------
                              TABLE B-4

                           HARM II FACTORS
Surface Water

Pathway Score
     Contamination Detected
     Contamination Not Detected
     - Distance to nearest surface water
     - Net precipitation
     - Surface erosion potential
     - Rainfall intensity
     - Surface permeability
     - Flooding potential
     Containment Multiplier

Contaminant Hazards Score:  Human Health
     Contaminants Detected
     - Log of sum of hazard quotients
     Contaminants Not Detected (based on single contaminant)
     - Toxicity
     - Bioaccumulation
     - Persistence
     Waste Quantity Multiplier

Receptors Score:  Human Health
     - Population that obtains drinking water from surface water
       sources within 3 miles downstream
     - Water quality classification of surface water
     - Population within 1,000 feet of site
     - Distance to nearest installation boundary
     - Land use/zoning within 1 mile

Contaminant Hazards Score:  Ecological
     Contaminants Detected
     - Log of sum of hazard quotients
     Contaminants Not Detected
     - Toxicity
     - Persistence
     Waste Quantity Multiplier

Receptors Score:  Ecological
     - Importance/sensitivity of biota/habitats in surface water
     - Importance/sensitivity of "critical environments" within
       1 mile of site
                                 76

-------
                        TABLE B-4 (Continued)


Ground Water

Pathway Score
     Contamination Detected
     Contamination Not Detected
     - Depth to ground water from base of waste or contaminated zone
     - Permeability of unsaturated zone
     - Infiltration potential
     - Potential for discrete features to "short-circuit" pathway to
       water table
     Containment Multiplier

Contaminant Hazards Score:  Human Health
     Contaminants Detected
     - Log of sum of hazard quotients
     Contaminants not detected
     - Toxicity
     - Bioaccumulation
     - Persistence
     Waste Quantity Multiplier

Receptors Score:  Human Health
     - Estimated mean ground water travel time to nearest
       downgradient well(s)
     - Population served by affected aquifer(s) in downgradient
       direction within 3 miles
     - Ground water use of uppermost aquifer
     - Population served by affected aquifer(s) in downgradient
       direction within 3 miles
     - Distance to nearest installation boundary
     - Population within 1,000 feet of site
     - Population served by affected aquifer(s) within 3 miles in
       other than downgradient direction
     - Estimated mean ground water travel time to nearest
       downgradient surface water body that supplies water for
       domestic use or for food-chain agriculture
     - Population served by affected water body within 3 miles
       downstream of discharge

Contaminant Hazards Score:  Ecological
     Contaminants Detected
     - Log of sum of hazard quotients
     Contaminants not detected (based on single contaminant)
     - Toxicity
     Waste Quantity Multiplier

                                 77

-------
                        TABLE B-4 (Concluded)


Ground Water  (Concluded)

     Receptors Score:  Ecological
     - Estimated mean ground water travel time to downgradient
       habitat or natural area
     - Importance/sensitivity of downgradient habitats/natural areas
       that are suspected discharge points
     - Importance/sensitivity of "critical environments" within
       1 mile of site
Source:  Barathouse et al., 1986.
                                 78

-------
          DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - HARM II (Continued)
SIMILARITIES
(Concluded)
TO MRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
also multiply component scores to form
subscores and then calculate the site score
using root mean square algorithms.

There are several differences between HARM II
and the HRS.  The most apparent is that HARM
II addresses only the ground water and
surface water pathways.  A further
significant difference lies in the weighted
root mean square (wRMS) algorithm used by
HARM II in calculating the site score.
HARM II calculates a subscore for each
pathway-effects category combination.  The
wRMS algorithm assigns the pathway-human-
health-effects subscores a weight of 5 while
it assigns the pathway-ecological-effects
subscores weight of 1.  The HRS does not
treat the pathway-effects combinations
separately and effectively weights them
equally.  A second significant difference
between the systems is the use of benchmarks
for health effects, ecological effects and
food chain accumulation in HARM II (the
hazard quotients).  This is in contrast to
the use of the Sax toxicity index in the
HRS.  Finally, HARM II utilizes a number of
factors not used in the HRS.  The most
significant of these are travel time and
bioaccumulation potential.  In part as a
result of these inclusions, HARM II relies
somewhat more on subjective judgment than
does the HRS.

Barnthouse et al. (1986) list the following
as the principal differences between the HRS
and HARM II:  omission of the air pathway,
use of a standard four-point rating scale,
inclusion of factors appropriate to USAF
applications, assignment of difference
values to individual factors, incorporation
of additional site evaluation factors, and
the wRMS algorithm.
                                 79

-------
          DEPARTMENT  OF  THE AIR FORCE  - HARM  II  (Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:            HARM II contains a number of features that
                        should be reviewed for possible inclusion in
                        the HRS.  Of particular interest are the
                        hazard quotients used in assessing effects,
                        the travel time used in assessing the score
                        for receptors, the bioaccumulation factor,
                        and the use of the wRMS algorithm.

REFERENCES:             Barnthouse, L. W.  et al., Development and
                        Demonstration of a Hazard Assessment Rating
                        Methodology for Phase II of the Installation
                        Restoration Program, ORNL/TM-9857, Oak Ridge
                        National Laboratory, TN, 1986.
                                 80

-------
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:


USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
Impact Scoring Methodology

Office of Surface Mining, Department of the
Interior

Office of Surface Mining, Department of the
Interior

The Office of Surface Mining uses the impact
scoring methodology to assist in establishing
priorities for addressing problems associated
with abandoned mine land.

The methodology is used to assign relative
impact scores to the impacts resulting from
abandoned mine land (AML) problems.  AML
problems include polluted water, subsidence,
water problems such as recurrent flooding
due to clogging of streams by mine sediments,
and mine facility hazards such as open
shafts, dangerous highwalls, and dangerous
abandoned equipment.  Impacts from these
problems include injury and economic losses.
There are two factors used to calculate an
AML impact score.  The first reflects the
amount of potential economic loss or injury
associated with the problem.  The second
reflects the frequency with which the loss
or injury is likely to occur.  The impact
score for a problem is calculated by summing
the value assigned to each factor.  The
cumulative impact score for an AML problem
area is calculated as the weighted sum of
the individual impact scores for each
problem in the problem area.

The HRS and the impact scoring system are
not comparable (see Differences).

The HRS and the impact scoring system are
not comparable in that they are intended to
deal with entirely different types of
problems.  The HRS is intended to rank the
relative threat of releases of hazardous
                                 81

-------
               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   substances.  The impact scoring methodology
(Concluded)             is intended to assign relative values to
                        impacts of problems such as open shafts,
                        abandoned equipment, and clogging of streams.

CONCLUSIONS:            The impact scoring methodology is not
                        applicable to the ranking of hazardous
                        substance release sites.

REFERENCE:              Tennessee Valley Authority and Oak Ridge
                        National Laboratory, A National Inventory of
                        Abandoned Mine Land Problems;  An Emphasis
                        on Health, Safety, and General Welfare
                        Impacts, prepared for the Departments of
                        Interior and Energy, 1983.
                                 82

-------
                       DEPARTMENT  OF  THE NAVY
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
Confirmation Study Ranking System (CSRS)

Department of the Navy, Navy Assessment and
Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP)
Program

Adapted by the Navy from the Air Force HARM
system

Currently used in the NACIP to rank sites
prior to performing a complete sampling
program.  Part of the DOD Installation
Restoration Program.

With three exceptions, CSRS is identical to
HARM.  First, while HARM employs the average
of the receptors, pathways and waste
characteristics subscores in determining the
overall site score, CSRS uses the product of
these factors (this product is multiplied by
a waste management factor to give the overall
site score).  The receptor and pathway rating
factors for both HARM and CSRS are listed in
Tables B-2 and B-3.  Second, CSRS evaluates
containment slightly differently from HARM:
limited containment is assigned a value of
0.80 in CSRS rather than 0.95 as in HARM.
Finally, the two system evaluate waste
characteristics very differently.  HARM
employs a matrix approach while CSRS
evaluates waste characteristics based on the
factors listed in Table B-5.  Each factor is
evaluated on a scale of 0 to 3.  This
evaluation is then multiplied by a factor-
specific multiplier to form a factor score.
The factor scores are then cross-multiplied,
as indicated, and the results summed.  This
sum is then added to a physical state factor
score and normalized to a scale of 0 to 1,
to form the waste characteristics score.

The principal area of similarity between the
CSRS and the HRS is in the common factors
that both employ.  For waste characteristics,
                                 83

-------
                              TABLE B-5

         ILLUSTRATION OF WASTE CHARACTERISTICS SCORING METHOD
Rating Factor

Waste Quantity (Q)
Acute Toxicity (AT)
Chronic Toxicity (CT)
Persistence (P)
Flammability (F)
Reactivity (R)
Incompatability (I)
Corrosiveness (C)
Solubility (S)
Bioaccumulation (B)
Physical State (PS)
Years site was in use (t)
Years since site was closed (t')

Scoring Factor
                                    Factor
                                Rating  (0 to 3)
Multiplier
AT x Q
CT x Q
C x Q
F x
R x
S x Q
P x Q x
B x (t
I x Q
    Q
    Q
        t
       + t'
Subtotal

Physical State Weighted Factors

Total

Waste Characteristics Subscore   420/612 » 0.686
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
3
Score
72
72
0
0
0
0
162
108
0
414
6
420
1
8
8
6
4
4
5
3
5
6
3
1
1
Maximum Score
72
72
27
36
36
45
162
108
45
603
9
612
Factor
Score

  3
 24
 24
 18
  0
  0
  0
  0
  0
 18
  6
  3
  3
                                 84

-------
                 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (Continued)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
(Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
these common factors include physical state,
toxicity, waste quantity, persistence,
reactivity, and incompatibility.  For site
characteristics (pathways) and receptors
(targets), the common factors are those
already identified in the HARM system.  For
site characteristics, these include depth to
aquifer/ground water, net precipitation,
soil permeability and distance to nearest
surface water.  For targets (or receptors),
these include ground water use, distance to
nearest well, land use, population served by
surface water or ground water, and critical
environments.

The CSRS and the HRS have a number of major
differences.  First, their overall structures
are different.  In the HRS, each pathway is
treated separately; in the CSRS the pathways
are combined in one scoring category
(pathways).  Further, the CSRS does not
consider the air pathway.  Also, containment
is treated as a single factor not a pathway
specific factor.  Second, the scores are
combined in different fashions in the two
systems.  In the CSRS, the subscores are
multiplied to form the site score while the
HRS site score is the root mean square of
the pathway scores.  Third, the CSRS includes
a number of factors in the ranking that the
HRS does not, e.g., waste flammability,
corrosiveness, bioaccumulation potential,
years site was in use and years since site
was closed (time factors).  Finally, in the
CSRS the waste characteristics score is a
complex combination of the waste
characteristics factors scores (e.g., the
toxicity score is multiplied by the quantity
score in the course of calculating the
overall waste characteristics score).

There are numerous additional differences
between the CSRS and the HRS, even in the
areas in which they are similar.  In the
CSRS, acute toxicity and chronic toxicity

         85

-------
                 DEPARTMENT OF  THE NAVY  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
are assessed separately using Sax and NFPA;
in the HRS one toxicity factor is employed.
For both ground and surface water, the HRS
considers just the population served by water
systems as a target category while the GSRS
considers both the population served and
total population (residential and working)
within 1,000 feet of the site.  Other
examples of these subtle differences exist
between the systems.

The concepts embedded in the following GSRS
factors should be examined further (the
factors themselves are generally not
adequately defined for HRS purposes):

•  Potential for flooding
•  Surface soil permeability
•  Bioaccumulation potential
•  Time factors

Several other GSRS waste characteristics
factors not included in the HRS were
considered during the development of the HRS
(e.g., solubility) but were not included in
the HRS at that time because other factors
were judged to be more important or because
of problems with data availability and/or
factor definition (47 FR 10975, March 12,
1982).  Those factors not included because of
the latter reasons should also be re-examined.

Luecker, Elizabeth B., "Navy Assessment and
Control of Installation Pollutant (NACIP)
Confirmation Study Ranking Model," Proceedings
of the Twelfth Annual Environmental Systems
Symposium, held on May 20-21, 1982 at Langley
Air Force Base, Langley, VA, American Defense
Preparedness Association, Arlington, VA, 1982.

Luecker, Elizabeth, NEESA, Port Hueneme,
California, personal communication to
Stuart Haus, The MITRE Corporation, April 11,
1985.
                                 86

-------
B.3  State Waste Site Ranking Systems




     This section contains summaries for systems developed or used




by eight states, primarily to supplement the use of the HRS in




determining State priorities in addressing sites.  The systems




examined are as follows:




     •  California




     •  Connecticut




     •  Illinois




     •  Massachusetts




     •  Michigan




     •  New Hampshire




     •  New Jersey




     •  New York
                                 87

-------
                             CALIFORNIA
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSION:
REFERENCES:
Public Health Benefit/Cost Ranking System

California Department of Health Services

California Department of Health Services

The system is used to develop the California
State Priority Ranking List which is a
ranking of sites for remedial action.

The system assigns a Public Health Index
(PHI) to a site based on the benefits and
costs of remedial action at the site.  The
PHI is then used to rank sites for remedial
action.  The PHI is calculated by dividing
the total benefits of remedial action by a
factor which is based on the estimated cost
of remedial action.  The total benefits of
remedial action are calculated by summing
the HRS migration, fire and explosion, and
direct contact scores for the site.

Except for the remedial action cost factor,
the system is identical to the HRS.

The system differs from the HRS in that the
migration, fire and explosion, and direct
contact scores are summed and then divided
by the cost factor.

The Public Health Benefit/Cost Ranking
System is essentially identical to the HRS
and does not need to be considered any
further.

Dlugosz, Edward and Alan Ingham, "The
California Ranking System," Proceedings of
the National Conference on the Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on
November 4-6, 1985 in Washington, DC,
Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1985,
pp. 429-431.
                                 88

-------
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
                             CONNECTICUT
Untitled

Connecticut 208 Program, State of Connecticut

TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Used by State of Connecticut to assign
priorities to sites for further
investigation.

The State of Connecticut evaluation system
is designed to classify sites into three
hazard categories:  (1) those posing no
hazard and at which no further action is
required, (2) those at which a hazardous
condition may exist and at which further
investigation or monitoring is required, and
(3) those posing an imminent hazard that
requires action to assure health and safety.
The classification process is illustrated in
Figure B-2.  A site is classified as posing
no hazard whenever it is not possible to
follow a continuous path through the diagram.
A site is classified as posing an imminent
hazard whenever any of the following seven
conditions pertain:
                           Improperly disposed liquid PCS wastes
                           Asbestos that can become airborne
                           Improperly disposed pesticides
                           Contaminants disposed within 200 feet of
                           a drinking water supply
                           Possible fire or explosion
                           Fish kills
                           Discharge of hazardous materials to storm
                           sewers or surface water
                        If the determination is made that a hazardous
                        condition may exist and further investigation
                        is required, then additional information is
                        collected, evaluated, and a sampling program
                        is initiated as needed.  In the case of
                        potential air contamination, a sampling
                        program is initiated without further
                        investigation.  In the case of suspected
                                 89

-------
  DISPOSAL
    SITE
Historical
Dump
Site
i


Surface
Impound-
ment
!


Drum
Container
or Tank
Storage
i


Landfill
<

Sites
Showing
Application
of Liquids


Other
Contam-
inated
Sites
!


 POLUTANT
THREATENED
 OR ACTUAL
CONDITIONS
 LOCATION
                                                         Discharge to
                                                        Storm Sewers,
                                                          Drains or
                                                        Surface Water
   In Regulatory
    Floodway,
100 Year Flood Plain,
  Coastal Rood
  Hazard Areas
  In Primary
Recharge Zone
 of a Drinking
Water Aquifer
Within 200 Feet of
a Well or Drinking
 Water Supply
                                            Potential Health Hazard
                                         Warranting Funhur Investigation
                                                        FIGURE B-2
                                  OVERVIEW OF CONNECTICUT SCORING SYSTEM

-------
                       CONNECTICUT (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
surface water contamination, information is
obtained on the distance to the nearest
waterbody and the direction of runoff before
a sampling program is designed.  In the case
of suspected ground water contamination, an
adaptation of the original LeGrand system
(see Section B.4) is employed to classify
the degree of hazard posed by the site and
to determine the appropriate course of
action.  Information is collected for
several characteristics of the site and used
to develop factor scores for the following
six factors using the line graphs in Figures
B-3 (for sites underlain by loose granular
material) and B-4 (for sites underlain by
less than 20 feet of till or soil above the
bedrock):
                           Depth to water table (0 to 10 points)
                           Sorption (0 to 6 points)
                           Permeability (0 to 6 points)
                           Gradient (0 to 7 points)
                           Distance to nearby wells (0 to 7 points)
                           Thickness of porous materials below
                           disposal point (0 to 6 points)
The scores for each factor are summed to
form a site score and the degree of hazard
is determined as follows:

•  0 to 8:  Imminent hazard
•  8 to 15:  Probable or possible hazard
•  Above 15:  Not an imminent hazard

There are few similarities between the
Connecticut system and the HRS.  The only
important similarities are that both use the
following factors, although in different
fashions:  depth to water table, permeability
and distance to nearest well.

The Connecticut rating system applies only
to the ground water pathway.  Except for a
distance to nearby wells factor, the system
corresponds only to the HRS ground water
route characteristics category.  The
                                 91

-------
WT
012345 6 78 9
Ii i i i I i i ii i
ii i 1 1 — i ~" 	 1 i i
5 10 20 30 40 50 75 100 200
Distance Below Base of Disposal Unit - Feet
01 2 3 4 4.5 5
1 i i i i i i

Coarse Coarse Clean Small Amounts Silt Equal Amounts
Gravel Sand Of Clay In Sand Of Clay And Sand
6543 2 1
i • i i i •

Clay Silt or Clayey Fine Sand Fractured Rock Coarse Sand
Sandy Clay Sand
* ^ rn
i -AD - i 1 U
0 1 23456
i i i i i i i
1 iii ii
60 30 20 10 0 10
Percentage
0 123456
»l ii iii
iii 1 i 'iii i
25 50 100 200 300 500 1,000 2,500 1
I ... Tool ... .1 1 	 M
10
1
1,000

6
1

Clay

0
j

Clean Gravel

1
7
i
1
60

7
1

10
Hoc 	 1
The Scales for the various factors are labeled as follows: WT, Water Table; S, Sorbtion; P, Permeability; G, Gradient; D, Distance. On all scales the
point values are indicated by the upper scale; the brackets indicate unacceptable ranges for any factor, except the two brackets on the gradient
scale, one labeled "AD", which is for an adverse direction of flow (toward point of water use), and one "FD" Which is for a favorable direction of flow.
    Source: State of Connecticut 208 Program, 1980.
                                                     FIGURE B-3
                        RATING CHART FOR SITES IN LOOSE GRANULAR MATERIALS

-------

rr



s



p




G



D



T
01234 5
i i i i i 1 i
1 '11' i 1 1
5 10 20 30 40

0 1
1 •

Fractured Coarse Clean
Rock Sand
654 3
Ii i i
1 •
Clay Silt or Clayey
Sandy Clay Sand
An
0

i i
60 30 20

0

i i •
25 50 100
1
012 3
1 	 ^1 	 . 	 L-^ 	 1-^ 	 f 	
678 9 10
III 1 1
1 1 1 1 |
50 75 100 200 1,000
Distance Below Base of Disposal Unit - Feet
2 34
1 ' 1

Small Amounts Equal Amounts Clay
Of Clay In Sand Of Clay And Sand
2 1 0


Fine Sand Fractured Rock Coarse Sand Clean Gravel

F~D
123456 7


10 0 10 60
Percentage
1 23456 7
1 i i i i i i
1 i iii i |
200 300 500 1,000 2,500 1 10
Font ' I Milnr I
45 6
. 	 L, 	 J 	 , 	 1 	 . 	 , 	 _ i
      0   10    20    30    40   50    60    70   80    90  100
                                                              Feet
200
300
The Scales for the various factors are labeled as follows: WT, Water Table; S, Sorbtion; P, Permeability; G, Gradient; D, Distance, and T, Thickness
of porous granular materials below disposal point.  On all scales the point values are indicated by the upper scale; the brackets indicate unacceptable
ranges for any factor, except the two brackets on the gradient scale, one labeled "AD", which is for an adverse direction of flow (toward point of water
use), and one "FD" Which is for a favorable direction of flow.
   Source: State of Connecticut 208 Program, 1980.

                                                       FIGURE B-4
                                      RATING CHART FOR TWO-MEDIA SITES

-------
                       CONNECTICUT  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
The Connecticut system contains three factors
that do not correspond to any factors
included in the HRS ground water route
characteristics cateogry:  sorption,
gradient, and thickness of porous materials.

The Connecticut system and the HRS are
designed to achieve broadly similar purposes:
the identification of sites that potentially
pose a significant risk.  Otherwise, they
are not comparable, except to the extent
that the original LeGrand system shares
three factors in common with the HRS.  The
concepts embedded in the three other factors
included in the Connecticut system, but not
in the current HRS, should be investigated
(see also the LeGrand system).  The factors
themselves are not adequately defined for
use in the HRS.

Unites, Dennis, Mark Possidento and John
Housman, "Preliminary Risk Evaluation for
Suspected Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in
Connecticut," Proceedings of the National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites, held on October 15-17,
1980 in Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials
Control Research Institute, Silver Spring,
MD, 1980, pp. 25-29.

LeGrand, Harry E., "System for Evaluation of
Contamination Potential of Some Waste
Disposal Sites," JAWWA, 1964, pp. 959-974.

State of Connecticut 208 Program, Hazardous
Waste Site Evaluation Manual, (1076-J80-80),
prepared by TRC, Environmental Consultants,
Wethersfield, CT, 1980.
                                 94

-------
                              ILLINOIS
SYSTEM:

USER:


Developer:


USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
Rating scheme

State of Illinois, Department of Energy and
Natural Resources

State of Illinois, Department of Energy and
Natural Resources

Used by the State of Illinois as a screening
tool, for regional planning, to identify and
assign priorities to sites or areas for more
detailed study and evaluation.

The rating scheme is intended as a screening
tool for regional planning.  It is used to
rank the relative threat to human health
posed by sites via the ground water pathway.
The rating scheme is composed of four
factors:  health risk of waste and handling
mode, population at risk, proximity of waste
activity to public water supply wells or
potable aquifer, and aquifer susceptibility.

The elements contained in these factors are
listed in Table B-6.  Each element is
assigned a numerical value (on a scale
ranging between 0 and 10, 50, 80, or 100)
according to prescribed guidelines.  These
guidelines are different for active and
abandoned sites.  Total scores for the first
three factor range from 0 to 100, while the
score for the fourth factor ranges from 0
to 50.  The four factor scores are added and
divided by 3.5 to give an overall score
between 0 and 100.

The rating scheme is intended to evaluate
ground water threats.  As such, it
corresponds to the HRS ground water pathway.
The rating scheme and the HRS ground water
pathway contain three elements that are
similar in concept, but which are defined
and evaluated differently.  These are:
waste quantity, waste hazard, population at
risk, and aquifer susceptibility.
                                 95

-------
                              TABLE B-6

         FACTORS AND ELEMENTS IN THE ILLINOIS RATING SCHEME
       Factors

 Health risk of waste and
  handling mode


 Population at risk
 Proximity of waste activity
   to public water supply
Aquifer susceptibility
               Elements

Waste quantity
Recorded management of waste
Potential hazard of waste

Population at risk if within public
  water supply well capture zones
Population at risk for sites outside
  public water supply well capture
  zones

Age of hazardous waste activity if
  within public water supply well
  capture zones
Density of hazardous waste activity
  for sites outside public water
  supply well capture zones

Aquifer susceptibility to surface
  sources of pollution
Source:  Gibb et al.,  1983.
                                 96

-------
                         ILLINOIS  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
The rating system contains two elements that
do not correspond to any factors present in
the HRS ground water pathway:  recorded
management of hazardous waste (e.g., whether
the site was well operated, whether it
received municipal or industrial wastes) and
the age or density of hazardous waste activity
relative to the proximity of the activity to
public water supplies.  As noted above, four
other factors in the rating scheme are
evaluated differently than in the HRS.  Waste
hazard applies only to RCRA listed wastes and
is evaluated using the ranking scheme from
the RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model.  Population
at risk is evaluated by determining whether a
site falls within a 75-year capture zone of a
public water supply well.  If so, it is scored
based on the population using the well; if
not, it is scored based on population density.
Waste quantity is based upon a different scale
than in the HRS and is evaluated differently
for abandoned sites and active sites.  Waste
susceptibility is evaluated based on the
thickness and permeability of the material
overlaying an aquifer.

The population at risk element in the rating
scheme needs to be further evaluated with
regard to its applicability to the HRS.  The
other factors are either not appropriate for
inclusion in the HRS (e.g., recorded
management of waste) or are not adequately
defined in their present form for inclusion
in the HRS (e.g., aquifer susceptibility).

Gibb, J., M. Barcelona, S. Schock, and
M. Hampton, Hazardous Waste in Ogle and
Winnebago Counties;  Potential Risk via
Groundwater Due to Past and Present
Activities, Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources, Document No. 83/26,
Springfield, IL, 1983.
                                 97

-------
                           MASSACHUSETTS
SYSTEM:


USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Prioritization of Environmental Risks and
Control Options (PERCO)

Developed for the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

The development of PERCO has been completed
by Arthur D. Little.  It is now being
studied by DEQE.  No schedule is available
for possible implementation of PERCO by DEQE.

PERCO was designed by ADL with the objective
of enabling DEQE to rank sites in terms of
immediate and long-term environmental and
human health hazards and to provide a
rationale for allocation of remedial action
funds.  The model was designed to reflect
the risks of the sites and the risk/benefit
trade-offs that might result from remedial
actions.  The model addresses both chronic
and episodic (acute) hazards.  Four pathways
are used for chronic hazards:  air, ground
water, surface water, and soil/direct
contact.  Three types of episodic hazards
are considered:  fire and explosion, toxic
vapor, and floods.  The overall PERCO
structure is illustrated in Figure B-5.

With regard to the four chronic pathways, a
human health score is calculated for each
pathway, as described below, and the four
human health scores are summed to determine
the total health score for the site.  In
addition, for the surface water pathway,
three optional scores (i.e., recreation,
fishing, and ecological) may be calculated.
For the soil/direct contact pathway, an
optional land score may be calculated.
These optional scores are not used in
determining the total site score; rather
they just provide additional information for
subjective use by DEQE.
                                 98

-------
            • Health Hazard Score
            • Ecological Hazard Score
                     Health Hazard Score
                     Property Hazard Score
                 Control Option
                    Costs
                                          c
  Priorties for
Control Options
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1982.
                                        FIGURE B-5
                              OVERVIEW OF PERCO SYSTEM
                                             99

-------
                     MASSACHUSETTS (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:     For the ground water and surface water
(Continued)             pathways,  the human health score is
                        determined through the use of  concentration
                        data and human health effects  benchmarks.
                        The concentration of each hazardous
                        constituent (based on one or more samples)
                        is divided by a subjectively chosen,  chronic
                        human health benchmark for that  constituent.
                        This gives a severity ratio for  each
                        constituent.   The severity ratio for  each
                        constituent is then summed to  give the total
                        severity ratio.   This total severity  ratio
                        is then multiplied by the population  served
                        by the water body to give the  human health
                        score.   The distance from the  site over
                        which the  surface water or ground water
                        population is counted is subjectively
                        determined by the person rating  the site.
                        If concentration data (i.e., at  least one
                        sample) are not available for  a  site,  then
                        similar sites to the site being  scored are
                        identified subjectively or in  the case of
                        the surface water pathway through the use of
                        optional guidelines.   The concentration data
                        from these similar sites are then used in
                        the above  procedure to determine a human
                        health score for the site being  rated.

                        Two of the three optional surface water
                        scores (recreation and fishing)  are
                        calculated in a similar manner.   The  total
                        contaminant severity ratio is  multiplied by
                        either the annual person-hours of recreation
                        for the water body (recreation score)  or the
                        pounds of  fish caught and eaten  from  the
                        water body multiplied by a bioconcentration
                        factor (fishing score).  The ecological
                        score is the maximum ratio of  the
                        contaminant concentrations divided by a
                        subjectively chosen ecological toxicity
                        benchmark.

                        For the soil/direct contact pathway,  the
                        human health score is determined by dividing
                                100

-------
                      MASSACHUSETTS  (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:    the acres of crops grown in contaminated
(Continued)             soil off the site by a subjectively chosen
                        crop concentration factor (CCF).  (The CCF
                        is meant to relate the contamination of
                        irrigated crops by water to resulting human
                        health risks and damages.  No guidance is
                        provided for determining the CCF.   The HRS
                        factor of 1.5 persons per irrigated acre is
                        recommended as a default value.)  The above
                        ratio is summed for each crop, and the sum
                        is the soil/direct contact human health
                        score.

                        The optional land score for the soil/direct
                        contact pathway is calculated by first
                        determining the annual person-hours of
                        people present on the contaminated soil.
                        This is the usage rate.  The usage rate is
                        divided by a subjectively chosen acute human
                        health toxicity benchmark.  This ratio is
                        the land score.  The land score is summed
                        for all contaminated soil to give  the total
                        land score.

                        For the air pathway, the human health score
                        is obtained by first determining a set of
                        concentric concentration rings around the
                        site.  The population within each  ring is
                        determined and multiplied by a weight for
                        that ring.  The weighted population for each
                        ring is then summed to give the human health
                        score for the air pathway.  The radius of
                        each ring is determined through a  complex
                        procedure involving the use of simplified
                        air dispersion equations and subjectively
                        chosen human health effects benchmarks.  One
                        or more air samples from downwind  of the
                        site is required for the calculation.  If
                        such monitoring data are not available, then
                        similar sites to the site being rated are
                        identified either subjectively or  through
                        the use of optional guidelines. The
                        concentration data from these similar sites
                        are then used in the above procedure.
                                 101

-------
                     MASSACHUSETTS  (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
In addition to the four chronic pathway
scores, three episodic (acute) hazard scores
are determined.  These episodic scores are
not used in calculating the total site
score; rather they provide additional
information for subjective use by DEQE.  Two
of the episodic scores (toxic vapors and
fire and explosion) are determined in a
manner that is generally similar in concept
to the air pathway health score.  The
flooding score is calculated as the product
of a flooding potential factor, a waste
quantity factor, and a toxicity/persistence
factor.

The principal similarity between the HRS and
PERCO is that both address the ground water,
surface water, air, direct contact, and fire
and explosion pathways.  The methods used in
each for addressing these pathways are very
different, however.  The only similarity is
that both consider the population-at-risk.

PERCO and the HRS are very different systems.
PERCO requires that concentration data be
used in rating a site.  Just one sample is
considered sufficient for rating a site.  If
data are not available, PERCO attempts to
identify similar sites to the site being
ranked and uses data from those similar
sites in ranking the site.  Thus PERCO
implicitly assumes that a fairly
comprehensive set of ambient measurements
for hazardous waste sites exists.  The HRS,
in contrast, uses concentration data
primarily to determine if an observed
release has occurred.  If there is no
observed release, the HRS uses surrogate
(potential for release) measures.  Another
critical difference between the two systems
is that many of the factors used in PERCO
are subjectively determined by the person
rating the site.  These include the health
effects benchmarks and the surface water and
ground water target distance limits.  In the
                                 102

-------
                     MASSACHUSETTS  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM MRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
HRS most factors are specified in advance to
ensure consistent and uniform rating of
sites.  Another difference is that PERCO
addresses options for remedial action and
subjectively assesses their risk/benefit
trade-offs.  This is not done in the HRS.

Four concepts used in PERCO warrant further
evaluation.  One is the use of health
effects benchmarks as part of any
concentration based factor.  The second is
the use of data from similar sites rather
than using potential for release factors in
rating a site.  The third is the use of air
dispersion equations to specify distance
rings for rating the target population in
the air pathway.  (The HRS currently uses
distance rings, but they are specified in
advance and do not vary from site to site.)
The last is the use of flooding factor.
None of the four concepts are defined well
enough in PERCO for direct use in the HRS.

Arthur D. Little, Inc., PERCO;  A Model for
Prioritization of Environmental Risks and
Control Options at Hazardous Waste Sites,
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA,
September 12, 1983.

Bois, Robert, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering, personal
communication to Carol Burger, The MITRE
Corporation, September 18, 1986.
                                103

-------
                              MICHIGAN
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
Site Assessment System (SAS)

State of Michigan, Department of Natural
Resources

State of Michigan:  Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Agriculture,
Legislative Bureau, Department of Health,
and Toxic Substance Control Commission

Currently used by the State of Michigan to
assess and prioritize sites, in terms of
relative risk, for further investigation and
remedial action.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SAS is a multi-pathway ranking system
designed to reflect the relative risk posed
by sites to public health and environmental
resources.  The system is illustrated in
Tables B-7 and B-8.  Five exposure pathways
are reflected in SAS:  ground water, surface
water, air, direct contact, and fire and
explosion.  Each pathway is evaluated
independently, and a site subscore calculated
as the square root of the sum of the squares
of the pathway scores.  This score is then
added to a chemical hazard score to form the
overall site score.

Each pathway score is the sum of a potential
exposure score and an existing exposure
score.  In turn, the potential exposure
score is the product of a release potential
score multiplied by the sum of environmental
exposure, and targets scores.  This
calculation procedure is illustrated in
Table B-7.  The factors addressed in
evaluating these scores are listed in
Table B-8.

The chemical hazard score is evaluated,
independent of pathway, using the complex
approach illustrated in Figure B-6.  This
approach considers diverse factors including
                                104

-------
             TABLE B-7
MICHIGAN SITE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM SCORE
               SHEET
^^^^^N^^^ Route
Category ^"""••^^^
Potential Exposure
Release
Potential (RP)
Environmerrtai
Exposure (EnE)
Targets (T)
Potential Exposure (PE)
Score - (EnE+T) x RP
1 1
"5 5
Existing
Exposure (E&E)
Route Score
PE + E&E
Ground Water
Rating
Factor
Release
Potential
Un-
saturated
Zone
Population
At Risk
Saturated
Zone

Existing
Exposure

Range of
Scores
0-2
0-100
0-100
0-60
0-520
0-250
0-770
Site
Score







Surface water
Rating
Factor
Release
Potential
Distance
To Surface
Water
Site
Slope
Flood
Potential
Population
At Risk
Drinking
Water
Population
Wetlands
Cold
Water
Fish
Warm
Water
Fish

Existing
Exposure

Range of
Scores
0-2
0-40
0-40
0-20
0-100
0-40
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-530
0-250
0-780
Site
Score












Air
Rating
Factor
Release
Potential
Mobility
Site
Activity
Population

Existing
Exposure

Range of
Scores
0-2
0-70
0-30
0-100
0-400
0-250
0-650
Subscore(SS) PW2 + SW2 + Air2 + DC2 + FE2] [[770]2 + [780]2 + [650]2 + [400]2 + [420]2 ] 1/2
Chemical
Hazard
Chemical
Hazard (CH)
Site
Score







Direct Contact
Rating
Factor
Release
Potential
Access-
ibility
Atract-
Iveness
Population

0-1 ,400


I Site Score CH + SS
0-2.000
Range of
Scores
0-2
0-60
0-20
0-100
0-400

0-400
Site
Score










Fire and Explosion
Rating
Factor
Release
Potential
Ignition
Source
Waste
Separation
Population
Wetlands

Range of
Scores
0-2
0-50
0-50
0-100
0-10
0-420

0-420
Site
Score










-------
                                          TABLE B-8
                           SITE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM RATING FACTORS
^^Route
Category^s^
Release
Potential

Environmental
Exposure
ut
CD
&
i2


Population
at Risk

Resource
Value

Existing
Exposure

Ground Water
Physical state
Containment effectiveness

Unsaturated zone
Population within target
area
Population served by well
field within 1/2 mile of site

Saturated zone

Exposure over background
levels
Population exposed

Surface Water
Physical state
Containment effectiveness
Site slope
Flood potential
Distance to surface water
1/2 the population within
the target area
Drinking water supply
population
Fisheries designation
Wetlands
Drinking water
Exposure over background
levels
Population exposed
Fish advisory
Air
Physical state
Containment effectiveness

Mobility
Site activity
Population within target
area

Non-applicable

Exposure over background
levels
Population exposed
Odors
Direct Contact
Physical state
Containment effectiveness

Accessibility
Attractiveness
1/2 the population within
the target area

Non-applicable

Non-applicable

Fire and Explosion
Physical state
Containment effectiveness

Ignition source
Waste segregation
Population within target
area

Wetlands

Non-applicable

Chemical
Hazard
Mammalian toxicity
Aquatic toxicity
Bioaccumulation
Persistance
Flam inability
Reactivity
Chemical quantity
Source: Iversonetal., 1983.

-------
  Acute Taoxicity
       +
   Genotoxitity
       +
Subchronic/ Chronic
     Toxicity
       +
    Ecological
     Toxicity
       +
  Bioaccumulalion
       +
   Persistance
                                         Quantity
                                            of
                                         Identified
                                         Chemicals
    Flam ability
     and/or
    Reactivity
 Quantity
   of
Unidentified
 Materials
                                                                         Weighted Average
                                                                                              Source:  Iverson et al., 1983.
                                                   FIGURE B-6
                    SITE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM CHEMICAL HAZARD SCORING PROCESS

-------
                        MICHIGAN (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
toxicity (acute, subchronic, chronic,
ecological, and genotoxicity),
bioaccumulation potential, persistence,
flammability, reactivity, and data
uncertainty.

There are several similarities between the
HRS and the SAS, as seen in Tables B-7
and B-8.  Each employs the same five
pathways.  Each addresses potential and
observed release, similar targets and waste
characteristics.  Additionally, many of the
same factors are employed in evaluating the
categories.  Both systems employ the root-
mean-square of the weighted sum of the
pathway scores to form the site score (or
subscore).

There are several significant differences
between the two systems (see Tables B-7
and B-8).  First, SAS addresses potential
and existing exposure separately, and adds
the scores for both to form the route
score.

Second, the waste characteristics/chemical
hazards portions of the two systems, while
serving similar purposes, are evaluated very
differently.  In the HRS, the degree of
hazard posed by the wastes is evaluated for
each pathway in terms of the Sax toxicity
score together with other factors such as
quantity and persistence.  In contrast, SAS
employs the approach discussed above.  Also,
chemical hazard in SAS is treated
independently of pathway (in contrast to the
HRS approach).

Third, the two systems are combinatorially
very different.  For example, in the SAS
ground water pathway, a score for
permeability and depth to the aquifer of
concern (unsaturated zone factor score) are
added to the targets score, the sum then
multiplied by the release potential score to
form the potential exposure score.  In the
                                108

-------
                        MICHIGAN (Continued)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
HRS, permeability, depth to aquifer and other
factor values are summed and then multiplied
by a targets value to form a similar score.
Further, the pathway score is the sum of the
exposure subscore and the chemical hazard
score in SAS, while in the HRS, the waste
characteristics score (which includes
toxicity related factors) is multiplied by
the release category and targets values to
form the overall score.  Also, all five
pathways are included in SAS in evaluating
the site score.  In contrast, the direct
contact and fire and explosion pathways are
not included in the HRS site migration score.

Finally, in many cases, the procedures used
to evaluate the common factors are different
in the two systems.  For example, in the SAS
ground water pathway, permeability and
thickness of the unsaturated zone are
evaluated in a matrix, while in the HRS,
they are evaluated independently and their
factor values added.

SAS is a complex ranking system, sharing
some characteristics with the HRS, while
also differing strongly from the HRS in
other respects.  It considers many of the
same factors as the HRS although the scoring
methods are usually different.  The complex
method used to evaluate chemical hazard
should be evaluated in detail for possible
adaptation for use in the HRS.

Iverson, Christine et al., Site Assessment
System (SAS) for the Michigan Priority
Ranking System under the Michigan
Environmental Response Act (Act 307, P.A.
1982), Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI, November 1983.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
1984 Review Report Michigan Site Assessment
System, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, September 1984.
                                 109

-------
                        MICHIGAN (Concluded)
REFERENCES:             Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
(Concluded)             Appendix C;  Guidance to SAS Model
                        Application, Michigan Department of Natural
                        Resources, July 1985.

                        Roycroft, Dianne, Michigan Department of
                        Natural Resources, Groundwater Quality
                        Division, personal communication to Thomas F.
                        Wolfinger, The MITRE Corporation,  August
                        1985.
                                110

-------
                            NEW HAMPSHIRE
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:


USE/STATUS:


GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
                        Untitled

                        New Hampshire Department of Health and
                        Welfare

                        New Hampshire Department of Health and
                        Welfare

                        Used by New Hampshire to rank sites for
                        further assessment and remedial action.

                        New Hampshire uses its system to rank
                        hazardous waste disposal sites in three
                        categories; high, medium and low priority.
                        The indicator of hazard is potential for
                        carcinogenic effects.  By default, all NPL
                        sites are assigned a high priority.  Thus,
                        the focus of the system is on non-NPL
                        sites.  The system is simple; site scores
                        are the sum of a carcinogenic potential
                        score and an exposure potential as shown.
                        Carcinogenic potential is scored as follows:

                        •  Human postive:    3
                        •  Animal positive:  2
                        •  Nonsuspect:       1

                        Presumably, the score is based on the maximum
                        carcinogenic potential of all the substances
                        at the site.

                        Exposure potential is scored as follows:
                           Direct exposure:
                           Potential exposure:
                           Unlikely exposure:
                                                3
                                                2
                                                1
                        The only important similarity between the
                        two systems is that the New Hampshire system
                        assigns a high priority to NPL sites and
                        hence to sites with an HRS score exceeding
                        28.50.
                                 Ill

-------
                      NEW HAMPSHIRE (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
The only important difference between the
two systems is the method used by New
Hampshire to score carcinogenic potential.

The method for scoring carcinogenic potential
should be examined when the HRS methods for
scoring toxicity are examined.

Dupee, Brook S., Environmental Health Risk
Assessment Unit, Memorandum to Brian C.
Strohm, Assistant Director, Division of
Public Health Services, New Hampshire
Department of Health and Welfare, May 18,
1984.

Dupee, Brook S., Environmental Risk
Assessment Unit, New Hampshire Department of
Health and Welfare, personal communication
to Stephen Lubore, The MITRE Corporation,
March 8, 1985.

Dupee, Brook S., Environmental Risk
Assessment Unit, New Hampshire Department of
Health and Welfare, personal communication
to Thomas F. Wolfinger, The MITRE
Corporation, September 13, 1985.
                                112

-------
SYSTEM:

USER:



DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:


GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
     NEW JERSEY
Severity Index

State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of
Hazardous Waste Management

Unknown

Used by New Jersey DEP to prioritize sites
for site inspection.

The Severity Index is used by the New Jersey
DEP to prioritize sites for site inspections
(SI) based on the data obtained during a
preliminary assessment (PA).  The Severity
Index calculates a total site score as the
product of a waste characteristics score and
an exposure potential score, divided by 100
to normalize the final score.

In determining the waste characteristics
score, the system employs the HRS toxicity/
persistence, waste quantity, and containment
factors and associated evaluation tables.
The waste characteristics score is calculated
as the sum of the toxicity/persistence score
and the waste quantity score all multiplied
by the containment score.

The exposure potential score is the product
of a population density/sensitive environment
score multiplied by the sum of six exposure
medium scores.  The six exposure media are:
   Ground water
   Surface water
   Air
   Soil
   Fire/explosion
   Direct contact
The population density/sensitive environment
scoring approach is unique to the Severity
         113

-------
                       NEW JERSEY (Concluded)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSION:
REFERENCES:
Index.  The six exposure medium scores are
each calculated as the product of a basic
score and an observed score.  If contamin-
ation is observed in the medium under con-
sideration, then the observed score is set
equal to 2; otherwise it is set equal to 1.
The basic scores for the ground water and
surface water medium are similar to the HRS
ground water and surface water use factors.
The remaining four basic scores are based on
assessments of the potential for contamin-
ation of air or soil, for direct contact of
hazardous substances by humans, or for fire
and explosion.  If such a potential is deemed
to exist for any of the four exposure media,
a basic score of three is assigned to that
exposure medium; otherwise, a basic score of
zero is assigned to that exposure medium.

Most of the factors in the Severity Index
are identical to, or very similar to, HRS
factors.  These factors and their evaluation
methods are the only similarities between
the two systems.

The major difference between the two systems
lie in the four exposure medium scores used
in the Severity Index, the algorithms used
to calculate the overall site scores (as
discussed above), and the many factors
included in the HRS that are not reflected
in the Severity Index (e.g., the ground
water route characteristics factors).  The
four exposure medium scores are apparently
assessed subjectively.  If a potential for
exposure exists in the opinion of the
analyst, a maximum score of 3 is assigned.
If not, a score of 0 is assigned.

The Severity Index is derived from the HRS.
No further analysis is warranted.

Kenneth J. Kloo, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, letter and
attachments to Wayne Praskins, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, July 30, 1986.
                                 114

-------
      NEW YORK
SYSTEM:


USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Human Exposure Potential Ranking Model
(HEPRM)

State of New York, Department of Health,
Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment

Life Systems, Inc.

Under development for the New York State
Department of Health to prioritize sites for
further investigative and remedial actions.

HEPRM is designed to rank sites based on
their potential for impacting human health.
Scores are first developed within the system
for 40 potential human exposure pathways
(e.g., ingestion of surface water).  The
human exposure pathways are grouped into
four media (i.e., air, soil, ground water,
surface water).  A score is determined for
each medium by summing the appropriate
pathway scores.  The overall site score is
determined by summing the scores for each
medium.  Table B-9 lists the human exposure
pathways within each medium.

Each human exposure pathway score is
calculated as the product of four factors: a
chemical factor, a target factor, a
probability of release factor, and a
weighting factor.  Each of these factors is
determined based on other factors, as
discussed below.  These other factors vary
according to the exposure pathway being
scored.

There are seven chemical factor scores, only
one of which is used per exposure pathway.
Each of the seven chemical factor scores is
calculated as the product of a toxicity
score and a migration potential score.
Three route-specific toxicity scores (i.e.,
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal) and a
general toxicity score are determined for
contaminants based on the Sax rating scheme
used in the HRS.  Four categories of
         115

-------
                              TABLE B-9

                       HEPRM EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Air
Soil
        Inhalation of air vapor (on-site)
        Inhalation of air vapor (off-site)
        Inhalation of particulates (on-site)
        Inhalation of particulates (off-site)
        Inhalation of soil vapor (basement)
        Ingestion of soil (on-site)
        Dermal contact with soil (on-site)
        Ingestion of plants (on-site)
        Ingestion of airborne soil (off-site)
        Dermal contact with airborne soil (off-site)
        Ingestion of plants (airborne) (off-site)
        Ingestion of waterborne soil (off-site)
        Dermal contact with waterborne soil (off-site)
        Ingestion of plants (waterborne) (off-site)
Ground Water
     General:
        Ingestion of ground water (water supply)
        Inhalation of ground water (water supply)
        Dermal contact with ground water (water supply)
        Inhalation of ground water vapor (basement)
        Dermal contact with ground water (basement)
        Dermal contact with seepage
        Ingestion of plants (irrigation)

     Surface Water Recharged by Contaminated Ground Water;

        Ingestion of surface water (water supply)
        Dermal contact with surface water (water supply)
        Inhalation of vapors from surface water (water supply)
        Ingestion of surface water (recreation)
        Dermal contact with surface water (recreation)
        Ingestion of plants (irrigation)
        Ingestion of aquatic biota
                                 116

-------
                        TABLE B-9 (Concluded)
Surface Water
     General:
        Ingestion of surface water (water supply)
        Dermal contact with surface water (water supply)
        Ingestlon of surface water (recreation)
        Dermal contact with surface water (recreation)
        Ingestion of aquatic biota
        Ingestion of plants (irrigation)

     Surface Water Receiving Runoff from Lagoon Overflow;

        Ingestion of surface water (water supply)
        Dermal contact with surface water (water supply)
        Inhalation of vapors from surface water (water supply)
        Ingestion of surface water (recreation)
        Dermal contact with surface water (recreation)
                                 117

-------
                         NEW YORK (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:    migration scores (i.e., soil contact, soil
(Continued)             vapor, ground water vapor, and ground water
                        contact) are calculated and are generally
                        based on vapor pressure and water solubility
                        characteristics of the contaminants.  The
                        three toxicity routes and the four migration
                        categories are used to define the seven
                        chemical factor scores (e.g., chemical factor
                        score for soil contact-ingestion).  The score
                        for each chemical factor is based on the one
                        contaminant with the highest score for that
                        chemical factor.

                        There are seven probability scores, only one
                        of which is used per exposure pathway.  The
                        seven probability scores are each calculated
                        differently; however, each provides for
                        assessing the probability based on either
                        documented evidence of release or potential
                        for release (or potential for contact, as
                        applicable), as does the HRS.  Table B-10 lists
                        the factors evaluated in each "potential"
                        probability calculation.  Many of the factors
                        are identical or nearly identical to factors
                        in the HRS, as indicated in the table.

                        There are 18 target scores, only one of which
                        is used per exposure pathway.  The 18 target
                        scores share a common, basic methodology.

                        In each, the population potentially affected
                        is estimated in up to four distance classes.
                        The classes are based on concentric rings at
                        specified distances from the site.  For
                        example, the four classes used to estimate the
                        ground water supply target score are (1) less
                        than 160 meters, (2) 160 to 1,000 meters,
                        (3) 1,001 to 4,000 meters, and (4) greater
                        than 4,000 meters.  The potentially affected
                        population is calculated for each class and
                        evaluated using a population scoring table.
                        The final target score is the normalized sum
                        of the products of the population scores for
                        each distance class and a distance class
                        score.  Several of the target scoring
                                 118

-------
                              TABLE  B-10

                      HEPRM PROBABILITY FACTORS
    Category
          Factors
On-Site Contact
Ground Water Transport
Air Vapor Transport
Air Particulate Transport
Surface Water Transport
Soil Vapor Transport
On-Site Plant Ingestion
Accessibility
Containment
Adjacent Population

Aquifer Proximity*
Net Precipitation*
Permeability*
Containment*
Leaching Potential**

Containment
Reactivity/Incompatability*
Evaporation Potential***

Precipitation (Percent Dry Days)
Containment
Site Area
Disturbance

Containment*
Rainfall*
Site Area
Disturbance
Site Slope/Terrain*

Permeability*
Evaporation Potential***
Containment*
Landfill Type
Depth to Waste

Not available
  *Factor identical or nearly identical to HRS factor.
 **Based on vapor pressure and water solubility of contaminants of
   concern.
***Based on vapor pressure of contaminants of concern.
                                 119

-------
                        NEW YORK (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
procedures employ variations on this
approach to reflect specific additional
considerations.  For example, the on-site
contact target scores employ only one class
since the targets are all on-site.

In addition to the chemical, probability and
target scores, HEPRM employs 40 weighting
factors reflecting the relative importance
of each human exposure pathway in
determining overall human health risk.
These weighting factors were developed based
on the product of an exposure coefficient
and the estimated maximum daily intake of
contaminant resulting from a concentration
of 1 ppm of contaminant in the appropriate
media.  The exposure coefficient for each
pathway was based on a "reasonable worst
case" estimate of exposure frequency,
duration, and magnitude as well as other
relevant factors.

As stated above, the 40 exposure pathway
scores are calculated as the product of the
appropriate chemical factor scores,
probability scores, target scores, and
weights.

There are two important areas of similarity
between HEPRM and the HRS.  Both address
common routes for human exposure and
associated potential human health impact,
for example ingestion of contaminated ground
water.  Also, as indicated above, the two
systems share many common factors and
several HEPRM factors are based on HRS
factors (e.g., containment and net
precipitation in assessing the probability
of ground water transport).

Despite the similarities between HEPRM and
the HRS, there are a large number of
differences between the two systems.  The
more important differences are differences
in basic philosophy, differences in the
exposure pathways, differences in the
                                120

-------
                        NEW YORK (Continued)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   calculation procedures, and differences in
(Continued)             the applicability of the systems.  There are
                        also minor differences in the approaches
                        used to calculate common factors (e.g., for
                        many factors, the minimum score in HEPRM is
                        0.1 rather than 0 as is used in the HRS).

                        As discussed above, HEPRM is an exposure
                        pathway system while the HRS is a contaminant
                        migration pathway system.  Thus, HEPRM
                        delineates a large number of exposure
                        pathways explicitly, while the HRS delineates
                        three basic contaminant migration pathways
                        explicitly and implicitly reflects several
                        exposure pathways simultaneously within each
                        migration pathway.  Nonetheless, there are
                        several exposure pathways delineated in
                        HEPRM that are not reflected in the HRS,
                        such as soil ingestion, contaminated plant
                        and aquatic biota ingestion, and dermal
                        contact with seepage.

                        In addition, the calculation algorithms used
                        are very different even when nearly
                        identical factors are employed.  HEPRM is
                        fundamentally multiplicative in determining
                        the exposure pathway scores.  For example,
                        the probability of ground water transport
                        score is the product of the scores for
                        aquifer proximity, net precipitation,
                        permeability, containment and leaching
                        potential.  The corresponding calculation in
                        the HRS uses the sum of the factor values
                        for the first three factors (and a fourth
                        factor, physical state, not included in
                        HEPRM) all multiplied by the containment
                        factor value.

                        Further, the overall site score in HEPRM is
                        the sum of the exposure pathway scores while
                        the site score in the HRS is the root mean
                        square of the migration pathway scores.

                        The final significant difference between the
                        two systems is that HEPRM addresses human
                        health risks only while the HRS addresses
                        human health and environmental risks

                                 121

-------
                        NEW YORK (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   simultaneously.   A separate system to assess
(Concluded)             environmental risks (Biothreat Ranking
                        Model) is currently in the early stages of
                        development.

CONCLUSIONS:            There are several characteristics of HEPRM
                        that should be investigated further for
                        possible adaptation into the HRS.  These
                        characteristics are all related to the
                        exposure pathways not currently reflected in
                        the HRS, such as ingestion of soil and
                        ingestion of aquatic biota.

REFERENCES:             Life Systems Inc., Briefing on Human
                        Exposure Potential Ranking Model (HEPRM),
                        Workshop on Prioritization Techniques/
                        Ranking Models,  Oak Ridge Associated
                        Universities, July 15, 1986.
                                 122

-------
B.4  Other Waste Site Ranking Systems




     This section contains summaries of ten additional systems




developed to rank sites for various purposes.  The systems are as




follows:




     •  Arthur D. Little




     •  Rating and Risk Assessment Methodology (Dames and Moore)




     •  Hagerty, Pavoni, and Herr System




     •  JRB Associates Model




     •  LeGrand System




     •  Monroe County Methodology




     •  Olivieri and Eisenberg Assessment Methodology




     •  Phillips, Nathwani, and Mooij Matrix




     •  Rating Methodology Model




     •  Objective Calculation Procedure
                                 123

-------
ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC.
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
 Untitled

 None has been identified

 Arthur D. Little, Inc

 Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers
 Association as an alternative approach to
 the HRS.

 The Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) system was
 developed as an alternative to the HRS.
 Similar to the HRS, it is designed to rank
 sites based on the relative risk they pose
 to public health.  The ADL system addresses
 three pathways:  ground water, surface water
 and air, each evaluated on a scale of 0 to
 100.  The site score is the sum of the
 pathway values, and ranges between 0 and
 300.  Three factor categories are evaluated
 within each pathway:  health effects, waste
 reaching pathway, and population exposed.
 Within these categories, values for several
 factors are combined to form the category
 values (see Table B-ll).

 The health effects category is evaluated
 based on the toxicity of the contaminants on
 the site.  The waste reaching pathway
 category is evaluated differently in the
 three pathways.  Four subcategories are
 evaluated in the ground water and surface
 water pathway (three in the air pathway)
 depending on whether there is evidence of
 release from the site.  The waste release
 subcategory is evaluated based on the
 factors listed in Table B-ll for each
 applicable pathway.  The subcategory value
 is the sum of the factor values.  In all
 three pathways, if evidence of release
 exists, the waste release subcategory value
 is then multiplied by 6 to form the waste
 reaching pathway value.  If no evidence of
 release exists for the ground water or
 surface water pathways, the containment and
          124

-------
                              TABLE  B-ll




                    FACTORS  INCLUDED IN ADL  SYSTEM
Factors
1. Health Effects
Toxicity*
2. Waste Reaching Pathway
A. Waste Released
- Volatility
- Physical State*
- Persistence*
- Quantity*
- Net Precipitation*
- 1-Year 24-Hour Rainfall*
- Flood Potential
- Exposed Site Area
B. Evidence of Release*
C. Containment*
D. Waste Transported
- Depth to Aquifer*
- Distance to Surface Water*
- Permeability*
- Site /Slope Terrain*
3. Population Exposed
Water Use*
Nearby Land Use*
Distance to Water Use*
Distance to Land Use*
Population Affected*

Ground
Water

X



X
X
X
X


X
X
X

X

X


X

X

X
Pathway
Surface
Water

X



X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X


X

X

X

X

X

Air

X


X


X



X
X








X

X
X
*Factors common to both ADL system and HRS.




Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1981.






                                 125

-------
                 ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
waste transported subcategories are
evaluated.  The containment value is simply
0 or 1, while the waste transported value is
the sum of the values of the factors listed
in Table B-ll.  The waste released,
containment, and waste transported
subcategory values are then multiplied to
form the waste reaching pathway value.  No
such provision for evaluating sites lacking
evidence of release is provided in the air
pathway; in such cases the waste reaching
pathway is assigned a score of zero.

The population exposed category is evaluated
as the sum of the applicable factor values.

The overall pathway score is the product of
the values for each of these three categories
(normalized to the 0 to 100 scale).

The ADL system and the HRS are similar in
many respects.  Taken together, the health
effects and waste reaching pathway categories
in the ADL system generally correspond to
the HRS waste characteristics and release
categories.  Combinatorially, they are nearly
identical.  The ADL population exposed
category is nearly identical to the HRS
targets category.  Also, both the ADL system
and the HRS evaluate the pathway value as
the product of the category values.  Finally,
both systems utilize many of the same factors
in evaluating category values.

Despite the similarities between the two
systems, there are differences between
them.  First, the overall site score in the
ADL system is the sum of the pathway scores,
while in the HRS, it is the root-mean-square
of the pathway scores.  Second, in the ADL
system, persistence and quantity are
effectively multiplied by the toxicity score
(as are the remaining waste released values).
                                 126

-------
                 ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
These factors are treated differently in the
HRS; persistence is incorporated into the
combined toxicity/persistence value, while
the quantity value is added to the toxicity/
persistence value.  Third, the factor value
scales for rating many of the factors differ
between the systems.  For example, quantity
in the ADL ground water pathway is evaluated
on a scale of 0 to 3, in increments of 1/2.
In the HRS ground water pathway, quantity is
evaluated on a scale of 0 to 8, in
increments of 1.  Since the scores in both
systems are normalized, the only important
distinction here is in the increments.
Finally, three factors are included in the
ADL system that are not in the HRS system:
volatility (in the air pathway), flood
potential (in the surface water pathway),
and exposed site area.

The ADL system was developed as a
modification of the HRS.  The ADL system was
evaluated by EPA before they HRS was
originally proposed and was found not to
rank sites as well as the HRS.  No further
evaluation is warranted at this time.

Arthur D. Little, Inc., Proposed Revisions
to MITRE Model, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Cambridge, MA, September 23, 1981.
                                 127

-------
                          DAMES AND MOORE
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS;
Rating and Risk Assessment Methodology

None identified

Dames and Moore

None identified

This system is an adaptation of the rating
methodology developed by JRB Associates,
Inc.  It employs the same four rating
categories as the JRB methodology.  Most of
the factors within each rating category are
identical to those in the JRB methodology,
although there are some additions and
deletions.  This methodology differs from
the JRB methodology (and the HRS) in that
there is no aggregation of scores from the
four rating categories.  Instead, the score
from each rating category is used to classify
that rating category as posing a low or high
risk.  The low or high risk classifications
assigned to the four rating categories are
then combined to specify an overall site
classification ranging from very low risk
to very high risk (there are six such
categories).

The similarities discussed under the JRB
methodology also apply to the Dames and
Moore methodology.  Similarities relate to
common rating factors.

Most of the differences discussed under the
JRB methodology also apply to the Dames and
Moore methodology.  In addition, the Dames
and Moore methodology contains several
rating factors not included in the HRS
or the JRB methodology.  These are
carcinogenicity/mutagenicity/teratogenicity;
bioaccumulation potential; type of evidence
of contamination; seismic activity; and
landfill cover condition, leachate
management, free liquids, and personnel
                                 128

-------
                     DAMES AND MOORE (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   training.  In addition, the method of
(Concluded)             aggregating the four rating categories
                        differs as described above.

CONCLUSIONS:            The Dames and Moore methodology is an
                        adaptation of the JRB methodology that was
                        considered in the development of the HRS.
                        Thus, there is no need for further review of
                        most of the components of the methodology.
                        With regard to the additional rating factors
                        indicated above, the factors are either not
                        appropriate for inclusion in the HRS (e.g.,
                        personnel training) or not adequately defined
                        in their present form for inclusion in the
                        HRS (e.g., bioaccumulation potential).

REFERENCES:             Dames and Moore, Overview of Methodology for
                        Rating the Potential for and Significance of
                        Ground and Surface Water Contamination from
                        Waste Disposal Sites, Bethesda, MD, Undated.
                                 129

-------
                  HAGERTY, PAVONI, AND HERR SYSTEM


SYSTEM:                 Hagerty, Pavoni, and Herr

USER:                   None identified

DEVELOPER:              D. Hagerty, J. Pavoni, and J. Herr

USE/STATUS:             No longer used

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:    The Hagerty, Pavoni and Herr (HPH) system is
                        an early ranking system (1973) that was
                        intended to rate potential ground water
                        impacts from landfilling of wastes.  The HPH
                        system produces two separate rankings, one
                        based on waste characteristics and the other
                        based on site and target characteristics.
                        The former ranking uses five factors to rank
                        the relative hazardousness (in ground water)
                        of wastes that might be places in landfills
                        (these factors are from the PHL model
                        discussed in Appendix C).  The latter ranking
                        uses ten other factors to separately rank
                        the potential of a landfill site itself to
                        result in impacts via the ground water
                        pathway.  In both cases, computational
                        equations are used to assign values to each
                        factor.  The factor values are summed to
                        produce each type of ranking.

                        The factors used to rank waste hazardousness
                        are:  human toxicity, ground water toxicity,
                        disease transmission potential, biological
                        persistence, and waste mobility.  The factor
                        used to rank the potential of a site to
                        cause ground water impacts are infiltration
                        potential, bottom leakage potential,
                        filtering capacity, adsorptive capacities,
                        organic content of ground water, buffering
                        capacity of ground water, travel distance,
                        ground water velocity, prevailing wind
                        direction, and population within 25 miles.

SIMILARITIES TO HRS:    Two of the rating factors in the HPH system
                        are similar to factors in the HRS.  The HPH
                        human toxicity factor is based on the Sax
                                 130

-------
             HAGERTY,  PAVONI, AND HERS. SYSTEM (Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
(Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS;
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
rating  scheme, as is  the HRS  toxicity factor.
Both systems also include a factor for  the
population in the area  of a site.  However,
the HPH system uses the total population
within  25 miles  of a  site while the HRS
considers only that population within three
miles of the site that  is using the aquifer
of concern.

The HPH system applies  only to ground water
impacts from the landfilling  of wastes.  It
is not  intended  to evaluate the relative
threat  posed by a site  in terms of the
site's  route characteristics, waste
characteristics, containment, and target.
Rather, it was intended to identify wastes
that may be of concern  if they were
landfilled and site locations that could be
of concern if wastes were disposed there.
Except  for the two factors discussed under
similarities to HRS, the other eight HPH
factors do not specifically correspond to
factors in the HRS.  Also, the HPH system
uses computational equations  rather than
factor  scores to assign a value to each
rating  factor.

The HPH is an early ranking system that was
considered in the development of later
ranking models.  The additional factors in
the HPH system that are not in the HRS are
not adequately defined  for inclusion in the
HRS.  The HPH system does not warrant any
further evaluation.

Environ Corporation, Review and Analysis of
Hazard Ranking Scheme,  Final Report, May 11,
1984.

Seller, L. and L. Canter, Summary of Selected
Ground Water Quality Impact Assessment
Methods, National Center for  Ground Water
Research, Report No. NCGWR 80-3, Norman, OK,
1980.
                                 131

-------
                        JRB ASSOCIATES, INC.
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
Methodology for Rating the Hazard Potential
of Waste Disposal Sites.  Sometimes referred
to as the Rating Methodology Model.

None currently identified.  Model originally
developed for EPA Office of Enforcement and
the Oil and Special Materials Division for
use in setting site investigation priorities
based on preliminary assessment data.  Model
has been used as the basis for several other
systems including the Rating Methodology
Model (RMM), the Navy Confirmation Study
Ranking System (GSRS), and the Dames and
Moore system.

JRB Associates, Inc.

None identified.

The JRB model consists of 31 rating factors
grouped into four areas:  receptors,
pathways, waste characteristics, and waste
management practices.  These factors are
listed in Table B-12.  Each rating factor is
scored on a scale of 0 to 3 and then
multiplied by a factor-specific multiplier.
These scores are then summed within each
area to form an area subscore.  The area
subscores are then summed, divided by the
maximum possible score, and multiplied by
100 to form the site score.

The principal area of similarity between the
JRB model and the HRS is in the common
factors that both employ.  These include
depth to ground water, net precipitation,
soil permeability, toxicity, waste quantity,
persistence, reactivity, and incompatibility.

The JRB model and the HRS have a number of
major differences.  First, their overall
structures are different.  In the HRS, each
pathway is treated separately; in the JRB
model the pathways are combined into one
scoring category.  Furthermore, the JRB
                                132

-------
                             TABLE B-12

              JRB ASSOCIATES, INC. MODEL RATING FACTORS


Factor Category              Rating Factor

Receptor                     Distance  to nearest drinking-water well
                                Distance to nearest off-site building
                                Land use/zoning
                                Critical environments

Pathways                     Evidence  of contamination
                                Level  of contamination
                                Type of contamination
                                Distance to nearest surface water
                                Depth  to ground water
                                Net precipitation
                                Soil permeability
                                Bedrock permeability
                                Depth  to bedrock

Waste Characteristics        Toxicity
                                Radioactivity
                                Persistence
                                Ignitability
                                Reactivity
                                Corrosiveness
                                Solubility
                                Volatility
                                Physical state

Waste Management Practices   Site security
                                Hazardous waste quantity
                                Total  waste quantity
                                Waste  incompatibility
                                Use of liners
                                Use of leachate collection systems
                                Use of gas collection systems
                                Use and condition of containers
Source:  Kufs et al., 1980a.


                                 133

-------
                  JKB ASSOCIATES,  INC.  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   model does not address the air pathway.  Also,
(Concluded)             containment is treated as a single factor,
                        not as a pathway specific factor.  Second,
                        the scores are combined in different fashions
                        in the two systems.  In the JRB model, the
                        site score is a weighted sum of the factor
                        scores while the HRS site score is the root
                        mean square of weighted sums of factor
                        scores.  Thus, the JRB model is a linear
                        model, the HRS is not.  Finally, the JRB
                        model includes a number of factors in the
                        ranking that the HRS does not, e.g., bedrock
                        permeability, depth to bedrock, waste
                        ignitability, corrosiveness, and volatility.
                        There are numerous other less important
                        differences between the two systems.

CONCLUSIONS:            The JRB model was assessed during the
                        development of the HRS (47 FR 10975,
                        March 12, 1982).  The additional factors
                        present in the JRB model, but not in the HRS,
                        were considered during development of the HRS
                        but were rejected because they could not be
                        adequately defined for use in the HRS or
                        because other factors were judged to provide
                        better measures of relative risk.

REFERENCES:             Kufs, Charles et al., Methodology for Rating
                        the Hazard Potential of Waste Disposal Sites,
                        (Draft Final Report), JRB Associates, Inc.,
                        McLean, VA, May 5, 1980a.

                        Kufs, Charles et al., "Rating the Hazard
                        Potential of Waste Disposal Sites,"
                        Proceedings of the National Conference on
                        Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
                        Sites, held on October 15-17, 1980 in
                        Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials Control
                        Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1980b,
                        pp. 30-41.
                                 134

-------
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
                          THE LEGRAND SYSTEM
Untitled

No specific users could be identified.
Modifications of the current LeGrand system
(and its predecessor) are used by the State
of Connecticut and in the Olivier! and
Eisenberg Assessment Methodology

Harry E. LeGrand

Designed to evaluate the acceptability of
locations for use as possible disposal sites.

The LeGrand system is designed to evaluate
the acceptability of a proposed disposal site
based on the potential for ground water
contamination at the site.  The system
produces a vector of site characteristics
(i.e., the "site description") to be used in
the evaluation process.  The complete
evaluation process is not algorithmic,  but
provides for subjective judgment based on the
factors contained in the site description.
The site description is based on the
following characteristics:
                           Distance between contamination source and
                           water supply
                           Depth to water table
                           Water table gradient
                           Permeability-sorption
                           Confidence in accuracy of results
                           Miscellaneous identifiers
                        Each of these characteristics is evaluated on
                        a separate scale which is adapted from the
                        original LeGrand system (LeGrand, 1964).

                        A combined numerical rating for the site is
                        calculated as the sum of the ratings for the
                        first four characteristics listed above.  An
                        additional factor is included based on the
                        degree of seriousness of the hazard using a
                        hazard potential matrix.  The degree of
                                 135

-------
                   THE LEGRAND  SYSTEM  (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
seriousness is evaluated based on the degree
of aquifer sensitivity and the degree of
contaminant severity.  The former factor is
evaluated based on the type of geologic
material underlying the site.  The latter is
based either on the source of the wastes
(e.g., organic or inorganic chemical
manufacturing) or the type of wastes (e.g.,
municipal waste) to be disposed of on the
site.  The inclusion of the degree of
seriousness factor completes the "natural"
site description (see Table B-13).

The aquifer sensitivity and contaminant
severity factors are also used to define the
"PAR" site description, a numerical vector
describing a benchmark for interpreting the
natural site description.  The PAR vector is
subtracted from the natural vector and the
resulting vector summed (as applicable) to
form the situation rating.  The situation
rating is then used in a rating table to
assess, qualitatively, the probability of
contamination and the degree of acceptability
of the site.  Engineering characteristics of
the site can be reflected in the PAR
description and hence in the situation rating,
although the exact procedures for doing so
are not provided in the references.

There are few similarities between the LeGrand
system and the HRS.  Both systems use some
common factors (e.g., distance between site
and water supply, and depth to ground water)
and both systems distinguish between the type
of receiving water body (e.g., well or
stream).  Finally, both systems evaluate the
probability that the site will contaminate
the ground water.  In all cases, however, the
two system treat these factors differently.
                                136

-------
                              TABLE B-13

           SUMMARY EXAMPLE OF LEGRAND SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR
           A COUNTY LANDFILL IN THE NORTH CAROLINA PIEDMONT
                        Factor

•  Distance between contamination source and water supply
   (2,200 feet)

•  Depth to water table (less than 2 feet)

•  Water table gradient (less than 2 percent)

•  Permeability-sorption  (30 feet sandy clay soil and soft
   rock over poorly permeable consolidated rock)

•  Confidence in accuracy of results

•  Miscellaneous
   (Creek as contamination target)
   (Other factors:  potential for mounding)

•  Sum of first four numerical values  (2+8+3+4= 17)
              Factor
               Value
                4F
                M
                17
•  Site Numerical Description (i.e., all of the
   above factor values)

•  Aquifer sensitivity (moderately fractured
   crystalline rock)

•  Contaminant Severity (municipal landfill)

•  Degree of Seriousness (moderately high)

•  "Natural" Site Description

•  "PAR" Site Description

•  Situation Rating

•  Probability of Contamination

•  Acceptability

Source:  LeGrand, 1980.

                                 137
  17 2 8 3 4F B S M


Moderately sensitive


     Moderately high

                E

17 2 8 3 4F B S M +E

16 2     4
             Unknown
             Unknown

-------
                   THE LEGRAND  SYSTEM  (Continued)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
There are numerous differences between the
two systems.  First, the LeGrand system is
not a ranking system.  It provides a
semi-numerical description of a site to be
used by decision-makers to evaluate the
acceptability of the site for use as a waste
disposal site.  Second, the LeGrand system
addresses the potential for ground water
contamination only.  No consideration is
given to the potential for surface water,
air, or soil contamination.  Third, the
LeGrand system does not consider the
potential impact of the contamination on
human health.  No consideration is given to
the types and numbers of potential
contamination targets.  Fourth, the LeGrand
system provides a nonquantitative assessment
of the accuracy of the rating.  No such
factor is included in the HRS.  Fifth, many
of the factors in the LeGrand system are very
subjective or nonquantitative, e.g., the
degree of aquifer sensitivity and contaminant
severity.  Sixth, the LeGrand system does not
consider the actual degree of the hazard
posed by the waste contaminants at the site.
Contaminant severity is assessed using vague,
non-site-specific waste classes.  Finally,
the LeGrand system contains some factors not
included in the HRS, particularly, water
table gradient and sorption potential.

The LeGrand system and the HRS are very
different systems, both in their structures
and in the uses for which they were
developed.  The LeGrand system can be
modified or adapted to assist in ranking
uncontrolled wastes sites and has been used
in such a fashion as indicated above.

The concepts embedded in three factors in the
LeGrand system should be evaluated further.
These are the permeability-sorption factor,
the aquifer sensitivity factors and the water
                                 138

-------
                    THE LEGRAND  SYSTEM (Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:            table gradient factor.  These factors,
(Concluded)             however, are not themselves adequately
                        defined for use in the HRS.  In addition, the
                        concept of including a qualitative assessment
                        of the accuracy of the rating results should
                        be investigated further.

REFERENCES:             LeGrand, Harry E., A Standardized System for
                        Evaluating Waste-Disposal Sites;  A Manual to
                        Accompany Description and Rating Charts,
                        National Water Well Association, 1980.

                        LeGrand, H. E., "System for Evaluation of
                        Contamination Potential of Some Waste
                        Disposal Sites," JAWWA. 1964, pp. 959-974.
                                 139

-------
                      MONROE COUNTY METHODOLOGY
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Monroe County Methodology (MCM)

Monroe County Environmental Management
Council, Rochester, NY

Monroe County Environmental Management
Council and State University of New York
(SUNY) at Geneseo under contract to U.S. EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas, NV

Currently used by Monroe County Environmental
Management Council to identify and assign
priorities to sites for future investigation.

The MCM is intended to supplement ranking
systems such as LeGrand and JRB by
identifying and ranking sites that might be
contaminated with hazardous wastes for
further investigation.  The MCM uses historic
aerial photographs as primary data,
supplemented by other data.  Based on the
historic record, sites are identified and
classified into six site activity categories:
identifiable, possible, unspecified, lagoons,
auto junkyards and salvage areas, and
suspicious.  A site activity record is then
compiled.  The site activity record covers a
large number of factors including the
historic activity at site based on photos,
site acreage, record of disposal activity,
type of waste disposed (e.g., acids,
radioactive waste, herbicides), adjacent land
use, well information, site features (e.g.,
depth to ground water).  A geologic analysis
of the area is performed leading to
development of geologic overlay maps.  A
geologic ranking sheet is prepared addressing:
overburden geology, estimated permeability,
relief/geomorphology, depth to ground water,
ground water gradient, bedrock character,
soil properties, texture and behavior.  The
geologic ranking system is based on the
presumed effect on the overall hazard that
                                140

-------
                 MONROE COUNTY METHODOLOGY (Continued)
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
 (Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
 each geologic  factor would  have:   increase
 hazard,  intermediate  (uncertain),  decrease
 hazard.  A decision on how  to  proceed with
 the site is made  based on the  site activity
 record combined with the geologic  ranking  and
 an assessment  of  the threat to drinking
 water.   For example, a decision to conduct a
 complete monitoring program would  be made  for
 a site with a  history of waste disposal, a
 high geologic  ranking and an identified
 threat to  ground  water.  Sites that could
 impact nearby  wells are immediately referred
 to authorities for testing.  Other sites are
 prioritized using a matrix  for ranking
 geologic and land use impact,  size and type
 of activity.   Information on this  matrix
 procedure  is not  available  in  the  reference.

 The MCM  addresses some of the  same factors as
 the HRS, e.g., depth to ground water, distance
 to nearest  well.

 The MCM  is  designed to identify and rank
 sites that  might  contain hazardous waste for
 further  investigation.  It  is  thus intended
 to be applied  at  an earlier  stage than the
 HRS.  The MCM  addresses ground water only and
 thus is  more dependent on geologic data/
 factors.   The  system does not  apparently
 produce  a  single  score for a site but rather
 classifies  sites  and prioritizes them based
 on their classification.   The  two systems are
 not directly comparable.

 The geologic ranking system  appears to
warrant  further evaluation for possible
 application to the HRS.

 Nelson,  Ann R., Louise A. Hartshorn and
Richard  A.  Young, A Methodology to Inventory,
 Classify, and  Prioritize Uncontrolled Waste
Disposal Sites (EPA-600/4-83-050),
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
Las Vegas,  NV, October 1983.
                                 141

-------
                MONROE COUNTY METHODOLOGY (Concluded)
REFERENCES:             Nelson, Ann B. and Richard A. Young,
(Concluded)             "Location and Prioritizing of Abandoned Dump
                        Sites for Future Investigations," Proceedings
                        of the National Conference on Management of
                        Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, held on
                        October 28-30, 1981 in Washington, DC,
                        Hazardous Materials Control Research
                        Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1981, pp. 52-62.
                                 142

-------
            OLIVIERI AND EISENBERG ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
SYSTEM:
Untitled
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District

Dr. Adam W. Olivieri and Dr. Don M. Eisenberg

Currently used by the San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board to rank hazardous
material contamination sites in terms of
their relative potential for ground water
contamination.

The Olivieri and Eisenberg assessment
methodology is designed to rank hazardous
material contamination sites containing
organic solvents in terms of their relative
potential for ground water contamination.

Sites are ranked with regard to two areas:
site sensitivity and contamination severity.
Site sensitivity rates the susceptibility of
the site to ground water contamination.  Site
sensitivity is rated using four factor
categories that have been developed based on
the LeGrand system (see Table B-13).
Table B-14 lists the four factor categories
and the 14 specific hydrogeologic and water
use factors within these factor categories.

Contamination severity rates the severity and
potential for the release from the site to
contaminate ground water.  Contamination
severity is rated using three factor
categories.  Table B-14 lists the three
factor categories and the nine specific
factors within these factor categories.  Four
of these factors, the three toxicity factors
and the bioaccumulation factor, are based
upon the chemical hazard rating scheme
developed by the State of Michigan (see
Figure B-6 and Table B-8).
                                 143

-------
                             TABLE B-14

    OLIVIERI AND EISENBERG ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY RATING FACTORS


SITE SENSITIVITY FACTORS

Distance to Point of Water Use

     •  Closest Public Well Downgradient
     •  Closest Public Well Not Downgradient
     •  Closest Private Well Downgradient

Intensity of Present Water Use

     •  Population Served by Wells in the Downgradient Square Mile
     •  Number of Public Wells within 1,500 Feet Downgradient
     •  Number of Private Wells beyond 1,500 Feet Downgradient, but
        Within 1 Square Mile
     •  Number of Private Wells Within 1 Square Mile Downgradient

Depth to Water Table

        Depth to Shallowest Ground Water
        Depth to Shallowest Useable Ground Water (Potential Supply)
        Depth to Shallowest Currently-Used Potable Water (Existing
        Supply)
        Permeability (Travel Time) of Zone 0 to 50 Feet Below Surface
        Permeability (Travel Time) of Zone 50 to 150 Feet Below
        Surface
     •  Permeability (Travel Time) of Zone 150 to 300 Feet Below
        Surface

Gradient of Shallow Water Table

     •  Ground Water Table Gradient

CONTAMINANT SEVERITY FACTORS

Toxicity

     •  Acute
     •  Chronic
     •  Mutagenic
                                 144

-------
                       TABLE B-14  (Concluded)


CONTAMINANT SEVERITY FACTORS (Concluded)

Physical-Chemical Properties

     •  Soil Sorption
     •  Bioaccumulation

Magnitude of Contamination

     •  Highest Contaminant Concentration in Ground Water
     •  Highest Contaminant Concentration in Soil
     •  Contaminant Plume Dimension
     •  Number of Chemicals
Source:  Olivier! and Eisenberg, 1985.


                                 145

-------
      OLIVIER! AND EISENBERG ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS;
The scores for each factor are summed to give
site sensitivity and containment severity
ratings.  At the user's discretion, these two
ratings may either be summed to give one
overall rating for the site or may be used
separately in a two-dimensional graphical
display as an aid to ranking the site.

The Olivier! and Eisenberg Assessment
Methodology is intended to evaluate the
relative ground water threat posed by sites
containing organic solvents.  As such, the
methodology corresponds to the HRS ground
water pathway.  The Olivier! and Eisenberg
Assessment Methodology and the HRS contain
five types of factors that are similar in
concept, but which are defined, evaluated,
and weighted differently.  These are:
distance to nearest well, population served
by wells, depth to aquifer, permeability, and
toxicity.

There are several major differences between
the Olivieri and Eisenberg Assessment
Methodology and the HRS.  First, the
assessment methodology applies only to the
ground water pathway and only to releases of
organic solvents.  Second, the methodology
uses different definitions and measures for
factors that are similar in concept to those
in the HRS.  Third, the methodology contains
several factors that are not present in the
HRS, e.g., contaminant carcinogenicity,
contaminant mutagenicity, contaminant
bioaccumulation potential, plume dimension,
highest contaminant concentration in plume or
soil, number of chemicals present, gradient
of ground water table, and soil sorption
constant.  Finally, the methods used to
combine factor scores to form the overall
site scores differs between the systems.  The
Olivieri and Eisenberg methodology is
additive.  Further, the actual method of
calculating the site score from the site
                                 146

-------
      OLIVIERI AND EISENBERG ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
sensitivity and contaminant severity scores
is left up to the user.  The HRS sums within
categories, but multiplies the category values
to form the pathway values.  Additionally,
the HRS utilizes a root-mean-square
calculation to form the site score.

The factors listed above that are contained
in the this methodology, but not in the HRS,
should be examined for possible application
in the HRS.

Olivier!, Adam W. et al., Assessment of
Contamination from Leaks of Hazardous
Materials in the Santa Clara Basin 205j
Report, San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board, SEEHRL University of
California, Berkeley and Santa Clara Valley
Water District, February 1985.

Olivier!, A. W. and D. M. Eisenberg, "A
Methodology for Ranking Risk of Groundwater
Contamination from Hazardous Material Sites,"
ASCE National Conference on Environmental
Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, June 25-27,
1984.
                                 147

-------
                PHILLIPS, NATHWANI, AND MOOIJ MATRIX
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
Phillips, Nathwani, and Mooij

None identified

C. Phillips, J. Nathwani, and H. Mooij

No current uses could be identified.

The Phillips, Nathwani, and Mooij (PNM)
matrix is intended to rank potential ground
water impacts from the land disposal of
wastes.  The PNM matrix produces three types
of rankings:  a waste hazardousness ranking,
a soil-site ranking (which corresponds to the
HRS ground water route characteristics
category), and a combined waste-soil-site
ranking.  Ten factors (4 of which are
modified from the PHL model discussed in
Section C.I of Appendix C) are used to rank
the relative hazardousness (in ground water)
of wastes that might be land disposed.  Seven
other factors (6 of which are modified from
the LeGrand Model) are used to rank the
potential of a land disposal site to result
in impacts to ground water.  The 17 factors
are confined in a matrix to rank the
waste-soil-site interaction.  Computational
equations are used to assign values to each
factor.

The six factors not included in the PNL model
that are used to rank waste hazardousness
are:  chemical persistence, sorption,
viscosity, solubility, acidity/basicity, and
waste application rate.  The one soil-site
factor not included in the LeGrand model is
infiltration.

The similarities discussed under the PHL
model and the LeGrand model also apply to the
PNM matrix.  Similarities relate to common
rating factors.

The differences discussed under the PHL model
and the LeGrand model also apply to the PNM
                                 148

-------
           PHILLIPS,  NATHWANI,  AND MOOIJ MATRIX (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
matrix.  Furthermore, the PNM matrix contains
six additional rating factors noted above
that are not included in the HRS or the other
two models.  In addition, the PNM matrix
applies only to ground water impacts from the
land disposal of wastes.  In evaluating land
disposal sites, the PNM matrix considers
only route characteristics and waste
characteristics.  Targets and waste
containment factors are not considered.  The
PNM matrix also uses computational equations
rather than factor scores to assign a value
to each rating factor.  Furthermore, several
factors require data derived from site-
specific field experiments before they can be
scored (e.g., sorption, chemical persistence).

The additional factors in the PNM matrix that
are not in the HRS are not adequately defined
for inclusion in the HRS.  The PNM matrix
does not warrant any further evaluation.

Seller, L. and L. Canter, Summary of Selected
Ground Water Quality Impact Assessment
Methods,  National Center for Ground Water
Research, Report No. NCGWR 80-3, Norman, OK,
1980.
                                 149

-------
                      RATING METHODOLOGY MODEL
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:


USE/STATUS:


GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
Rating Methodology Model

None identified

Undetermined.  Apparently based on JRB
Associates, Inc. model.

None could be identified.  Model as presented
in reference is not useable.

The Rating Methodology Model (RMM) is an
adaptation of the JRB Associates, Inc. model
and is designed to evaluate the risk of
hazardous waste sites and to produce a single
score reflecting this risk.  The RMM
incorporates four types of factors:
receptors, pathways, waste characteristics,
and waste management practices.  Little
information is available in the reference on
the factors and computational approaches
employed in the RMM.  In the model, scores
are determined for each of several evaluation
parameters.  These parameter scores are
multiplied by weighting factors to form site
parameter scores.  These site parameters
scores are then summed and normalized to form
a site score.

Most of the factors identified in the RMM
appear to be addressed in the HRS.  Receptor
parameters appear to include population and
facilities, land and water use, critical
habitats and biota.  Pathways appear to
include air, water and soil.  Waste
characteristics common to both the RMM and
HRS appear to include quantity, condition of
wastes, toxicity, ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity and persistence.  See JRB
Associates, Inc. for a further discussion of
similarities.

The RMM considers more waste characteristics
than the HRS:  mobility, carcinogenicity,
volatility, radioactivity, and solubility.
                                 150

-------
                RATING METHODOLOGY MODEL  (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
(Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
The computational approach appears to be
different; the score is based on the sum of
the site parameter scores rather than on the
product of pathway scores, as in the HRS.
See JRB Associates, Inc. for a further
discussion of differences.

The model appears to be more of a general
approach for a ranking system rather than a
ranking system itself.  The operational
definition of the additional waste
characteristics that appear in RMM are not
adequate for consideration in the HRS.

Berger, Isabell S., "Determination of Risk
for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,"
Proceedings of the National Conference on
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites, held on November 29-December 1, 1982
in Washington, DC, Hazardous Materials
Control Research Institute, Silver Spring,
MD, 1982, pp. 23-26.
                                 151

-------
                 TRC  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS;
Untitled.  Author refers to approach as an
Objective Calculation Procedure (OCP).

None has been identified.  System is
presented in conference proceedings.

TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., under
subcontract to GCA/Technology Division,
which is under contract to EPA.

None could be identified.  System as
presented in reference is not useable.

The author presents a calculation equation
designed to estimate the total risk from a
waste site over a defined time period.  The
equation reflects the potency of chemicals
released, the relationship between ambient
concentrations of the chemicals and the
ingestion/inhalation rates of the chemicals,
population and the exposure concentration.
The author also compares his equation to the
approach taken in the HRS.

Many of the factors included in the HRS are
reflected in the OCP.  For example, in the
ground water pathway, the OCP reflects
observed release, route characteristics,
containment, physical state of the waste,
contaminant persistence, contaminant
toxicity/infectiousness, waste quantity,
ground water use, target population and
distance to nearest well downgradient.

The OCP is not a scoring system but can be
used as the basis for one.  The author
states that the OCP does not discount future
risks while the HRS "strikes a balance" by
combining scores for waste quantity and
release rate.  The author also states that
the OCP emphasizes "what is right" about a
site while the HRS emphasizes "what is
wrong" with the site.
                                152

-------
           TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. (Concluded)
CONCLUSIONS:            The OCP presents a risk-based alternative to
                        the value-based approach taken in the HRS.
                        Its concept could be implemented, but is
                        subject to more severe data availability
                        problems than the HRS.  The equations
                        presented are also significantly simplified,
                        possibly too much to be acceptable.  Some of
                        the factors included in the OCP should be
                        reviewed for inclusion in the HRS (e.g.,
                        contaminant mobility); however, the approach
                        taken in the OCP is incompatible with the
                        HRS.

REFERENCES:             Murphy, Brian L., "Abandoned Site Risk
                        Assessment Modeling and Sensitivity
                        Analysis," Proceedings of the National
                        Conference on Management of Uncontrolled
                        Hazardous Waste Sites, held on November 29-
                        December 1, 1982 in Washington, DC,
                        Hazardous Materials Control Research
                        Institute, Silver Spring, MD, 1982,
                        pp. 396-398.
                                 153

-------
                             APPENDIX C




                   CHEMICAL HAZARD RANKING SYSTEMS






     Section C.I contains summaries for seven systems developed for




use in ranking chemical hazards.  Each summary contains information




on the following topics:




     • Name




     • User




     • Developer




     • Use/Status




     • General Description




     • Similarities to HRS




     • Differences from HRS




     • Conclusions




     • References




Section C.2 identifies 52 other chemical hazard ranking systems.
                                155

-------
C.I  Individual Systems Summaries




     This section presents individual summaries of seven chemical




hazard ranking systems:




     •  Action Alert System




     •  Barring Model




     •  CERCLA Reportable Quantities




     •  Clement Associates




     •  PHL Model




     •  RCRA Hazardous Waste Scheduling Methodology




     •  Superfund Public Health Evaluation System
                                 156

-------
                         ACTION ALERT SYSTEM
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:

DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSION:
Action Alert System

United States Environmental  Protection
Agency, Monitoring and Data  Support Division,
Office of Water Regulations  and Standards.

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

The Action Alert System was  designed and
used as a planning tool to evaluate 129
priority pollutants.  It is  no longer being
used.

The Action Alert System was  developed as a
preliminary screening tool for use in
prioritizing chemicals, primarily the 129
priority pollutants, for further study or
regulatory action based on the potential
risk they pose to humans and aquatic life.
The Action Alert System was  intended to
provide a rapid and consistent mechanism for
screening chemicals based upon partial
information about their presence in the
environment and the associated potential
hazards.  The screening provides either a
qualitative indication of the degree of
concern warranted for each chemical (i.e.,
low or high) or a specification of the
additional data required to make such a
determination.

None, see differences.

The Action Alert System is intended to
prioritize chemicals for further study
or regulatory action based on risk
approximations.   It is not intended to rank
the threat posed by waste sites, nor even to
rank the degree of hazard of various
chemicals.

The Action Alert System is not applicable to
ranking the potential threat posed by
hazardous waste sites.
                                 157

-------
                   ACTION ALERT SYSTEM (Concluded)
REFERENCES:             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, An
                        Approach to Prioritization of Environmental
                        Pollutants;  The Action Alert System, Final
                        Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection
                        Agency, June 1980 (revised January 1982).

                        Slimak, Mike, U.S. Environmental Protection
                        Agency, personal communication to Carol
                        Burger, The MITRE Corporation, September 18,
                        1986.
                                158

-------
                            BARRING MODEL
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
 Barring Model

 Environmental Protection Agency

 Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc.

 No longer used.

 The Barring Model is an early hazard ranking
 model (1973) that was intended to identify a
 representative list of hazardous substances
 and to rank the effects of these substances
 in terms of air, water, and land pollution
 hazards.  Four factors addressing toxic
 effects to human and other populations,
 flammable hazard, explosive hazard, and
 reactive hazard were used to calculate a
 Total Effects Rating (TER) for a hazardous
 substance.  The TER was a weighted sum of
 the four factors values.  The Hazard Rating
was calculated as the product of the TER and
 a Hazard Extent Rating which was based on
 annual production and consumer distribution
 of the hazardous substances.  Over 500
 substances, many of which were warfare
 agents, were rated using the model.

 Several of the factors in the Barring Model
 are similar to some of the factors in the
 waste characteristics category of the HRS
 air and fire and explosion pathways (e.g.,
 toxicity, reactivity).  However, they are
 not specified or weighted in the same way.

 There are a number of differences between
 the HRS waste characteristics categories and
 the Barring Model.  The most important is
 that by the nature of its ranking factors,
 the Barring Model seems intended to focus on
 ranking explosive and ignitable wastes rather
 than on ranking the many types of hazardous
 substances present at release sites.  Its
 application primarily to warfare agents
 provides further evidence of this focus.
                                 159

-------
                      BARRING MODEL (Concluded)
CONCLUSION:             The Barring Model was an early ranking model
                        that was considered in the development of
                        more recent ranking models.  It does not
                        warrant any further evaluation.

REFERENCES:             Environ Corporation, Review and Analysis of
                        Hazard Ranking Schemes, Final Report,
                        May 11, 1984.
                                 160

-------
CERCLA REPORTABLE QUANTITIES (RQ)
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
      Reportable Quantities

      Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
      Solid Waste

      Environmental Monitoring and Services, Inc.

      Used to determine quantities of releases
      that must be reported to EPA pursuant to
      Sections 102(a) and 102(b) of CERCLA.

      The purpose of this system is to determine
      the minimum quantity of a hazardous substance
      spill or release that must be reported to
      EPA.  Initially, each substance is assigned
      a vector of RQ values based on its
      reactivity, ignitability, acute toxicity,
      aquatic toxicity, and chronic toxicity.

      Reactivity is evaluated based on the ability
      of the substance to react with water and/or
      itself.  RQ values for reactivity range from
      10 to 5,000.  Ignitability is evaluated,
      using the same scale as reactivity, based  on
      the flash point and boiling point of the
      substance.  Acute toxicity is evaluated
      based on the LC5Q or LD5Q of the
      substance administered by ingestion,
      inhalation, or dermal contact, as applicable.
      Acute toxicity values range from 1 to
      5,000.  For example, substances with an oral
      LDjjQ less than 0.1 mg/kg, a dermal LD5Q
      less than 0.04 mg/kg, or an inhalation
      LC5Q less than 0.04 ppm are assigned an RQ
      value of 1.  The acute toxicity value for  a
      substance is the minimum of the values for
      its possible exposure routes.  Aquatic
      toxicity is evaluated using the LC5Q of the
      substance, again on the full scale of 1 to
      5,000.  The method for evaluating chronic
      toxicity is more complex.  Chronic toxicity
      is evaluated based on a composite of the
      overall minimum effective dose (MED) of the
      substance for the three possible exposure
               161

-------
            CERCLA REPORTABLE  QUANTITIES  (RQ)  (Continued)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
(Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
routes (ingestion, inhalation, and dermal)
and a numerical assessment of the severity
of the effects caused by repeated or
continuous exposure.  MED is converted to a
scale of 1 to 10, using the inverse of the
logarithm of the MED.  Severity is also
evaluated on a scale of 1 to 10, with minor
effects being assigned low scores and major
effects, high scores.

The product of the MED and severity scores
is calculated and an RQ value is assigned
using the following scale:
1 to 5:
6 to 20:
21 to 40:
41 to 80:
81 to 100:
RQ = 5000
RQ = 1000
RQ = 100
RQ = 10
RQ = 1
The lowest of the RQ values determined for
the five criteria is taken as the "primary
criteria" RQ value.  This value may then be
adjusted, based on the persistence of the
substance in the environment to obtain the
statutory RQ value.  Persistence is defined
in terms of the potential of the substance
for undergoing biodegradation, hydrolysis,
and photolysis.

There are three areas of similarity
between the RQ system and the HRS waste
characteristics evaluation procedure.
First, both systems consider the acute
toxicity of a substance.  Also, both systems
consider chronic toxicity, the RQ systems
explicitly, the HRS implicitly to the extent
that Sax considers it.  The second similarity
lies in the way that each considers acute
toxicity.  Both systems assign values to
substance based on the IB$Q or LC^g of
the substance, as applicable, although the
two systems use different scales.  Finally,
both systems address the ignitability and
reactivity of substances.
                                162

-------
            CERCLA REPORTABLE QUANTITIES (RQ) (Concluded)
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
 There are several important differences
 between the systems.  First, as stated
 above, the procedures used in evaluating the
 common factors are different in some
 details.  Second, and more importantly, the
RQ system considers a number of chronic
 effects (including teratogenicity) not
 addressed in Sax, and hence excluded from
consideration in the HRS.  Third, the HRS
employs different values depending on the
migration pathway under consideration.  The
RQ system does not consider migration
pathways, only modes of exposure.  Further,
the HRS assumes a direct relationship
between the mode of exposure and the
migration pathway, e.g., ingestion is
assumed to be the mode of exposure in the
ground water pathway while inhalation is
assumed in the air pathway.  Given this
assumption, the HRS treats modes of exposure
separately while the RQ value is based on
the minimum of the values for the potential
modes of exposure.

 The RQ system contains many features that
are either addressed indirectly or lacking
 in the HRS waste characteristics category.
 The systems should be evaluated in detail.

 Environmental Monitoring and Services, Inc.,
 Technical Background Document to Support
Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102,
 Volume 1, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Washington, DC, 1985.

 48 FR 12552, May 25, 1983.

 50 FR 13456, April 4, 1985.
                                 163

-------
                         CLEMENT ASSOCIATES
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:


GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS;
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
Untitled

Clement Associates, Inc.

Clement Associates, Inc.

The system has been used to determine the
relative risk ranking of 32 chemicals.

The methodology provides a score for a
pollutant that represents the relative
probability that a given hazard will occur
in exposed populations per unit dose of the
pollutant.  The effects that are scored are
carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, reproductive
toxicity, mutagenicity, hepatotoxicity,
renal toxicity, neurobehavioral toxicity and
effects in other organ systems.  A score is
assigned for each of these forms of toxicity
for each pollutants.  The score is a product
of two measures of risk:

•  Probability that the pollutant is toxic to
   humans, based on inferences from animal
   data, or on direct measures of human
   toxicity.

•  Probability of occurrence of the toxic
   effect in exposed humans per unit dose of
   exposure, assuming that the agent is a
   human toxicant.

The sole similarity between the Clement
Associates, Inc. system and the HRS is that
both reflect acute toxicity.

The methodology is an alternative to the Sax
rating scheme used in the HRS toxicity factor.

The methodology needs to be further evaluated
to assess its applicability to the HRS.

Clement Associates, Inc., Toxics Integration
Program;  Scoring of Selected Pollutants for
Relative Risk, Washington, DC, June 26, 1981.
                                 164

-------
                              PHL MODEL
SYSTEM:

USER:

DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
PHL Model

None has been identified.

J. Pavoni, D. Hagerty, and L. Lee

No longer used.

The PHL Model is an early ranking model
(1972) that was intended to rank the
hazardousness of substances placed in
landfills.  The model consists of five
ranking factors that were summed:  toxicity,
ground water toxicity, disease transmission
potential, biodegradability, and mobility.
Computational equations were used to assign
a value to each factor.

The toxicity factor in the PHL Model is
based on the Sax rating schemes.

The PHL Model applies only to substances
placed in landfills.  It contains three
factors not included in the HRS:  disease
transmission potential, ground water
toxicity, and mobility.  Ground water
toxicity of a substance is calculated based
on the smallest concentration known to have
caused injury to man or biota.  Mobility is
calculated based on the ionic charge or net
charge of a substance.  The PHL Model also
uses computational equations rather than
factor scores to assign a value to each
rating factor.

The PHL is an early ranking model that was
considered in the development of later
ranking models.  It does not warrant any
further evaluation.

Environ Corporation, Review and Analysis of
Hazard Ranking Schemes, Final Report,
May 11, 1984.
                                 165

-------
            RCRA HAZARDOUS  WASTE SCHEDULING METHODOLOGY
SYSTEM:

USER:


DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
RCRA Hazardous Waste Scheduling Methodology

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste

Environ Corporation

The methodology has been proposed by EPA to
be used to schedule RCRA listed hazardous
waste streams for land disposal prohibition
determinations, as required by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.  The
methodology was proposed in the Federal
Register (50 FR 23250, May 31, 1985) and has
not yet been promulgated as final.

The methodology ranks the toxic potential of
waste constituents.  The toxicity ranking
scheme incorporates measures of both acute
and chronic toxicity and can be applied to a
broad range of chemicals with a wide variety
of data bases.  The 11)50 *s use(^ as a
measure of acute toxicity.  The chronic
toxic potential of a compound is summarized
in a single term, designated the Equivalent
Dose Estimate (EDE).  Acceptable daily
intakes (ADIs) and unit cancer risks (UCRs)
serve as the basis for deriving the EDEs for
noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic compounds,
respectively.  For those compounds with
limited data bases, additional uncertainty
factors are applied to derive the EDE.  For
compounds with extremely limited data bases,
EDEs are assigned by analogy to structurally
similar compounds or are estimated by
applying a large standardization factor to a
measure of acute toxicity.  The waste
constituents are assigned a chronic toxicity
score of 1 to 9 based on the estimate of
chronic toxic potential (the EDE).  This
score is adjusted upward by 1 if a compound
possesses high acute toxicity according to
the established criteria.  Thus, the
resulting toxicity scores range from 1 to 10.
                                166

-------
       RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE SCHEDULING METHODOLOGY (Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES :
The EDE is an alternative to the Sax rating
scheme used in the HRS toxicity factor.

The EDE is based on ADIs and UCRs and not on
the Sax rating scheme.  As such it is an
alternative to the HRS toxicity factor.

The methodology needs to be further evaluated
for possible application in the HRS.

Environ Corporation, Documentation for the
Development of Toxicity and Volume Scores
for the Purpose of Scheduling Hazardous
Wastes, Final Report, Washington, DC,
March 28, 1985.
                                 167

-------
          SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION  (SPHE) SYSTEM
SYSTEM:                 Superfund Public Health Evaluation (SPHE)
                        System

USER:                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
                        of Solid Waste
DEVELOPER:

USE/STATUS:



GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
                        IGF Incorporated

                        Used to evaluate the threat to public health
                        from NPL sites and to develop remedial action
                        goals.

                        The SPHE system is a method for estimating
                        the public health impacts of NPL sites.  It
                        is used as part of the remedial response
                        process, as an aid in identifying, evaluating,
                        and selecting remedial alternatives.  As
                        such, it is not a chemical hazard ranking
                        system.  However, Step 1 of the SPHE system
                        addresses the selection of chemicals, from
                        among all those chemicals at the site, as
                        "indicator chemicals" to be used in further
                        site evaluation.  This portion of the system
                        was examined as a chemical hazard ranking
                        system.

                        The SPHE system uses an "indicator score" to
                        identify indicator chemicals.  The indicator
                        score is the product of the measured (or
                        estimated) concentration of the chemical at
                        the site times a "toxicity constant."  These
                        toxicity constants are benchmark ambient
                        concentrations derived separately for air,
                        water, and soil.  The toxicity constants are
                        in units of inverse concentration (e.g., 1/mg
                        or m^/mg).  Separate toxicity constants are
                        carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects.
                        Thus, a particular chemical may have as
                        many as six toxicity constants; one for
                        carcinogenic effects in each of three routes
                        and one for noncarcinogenic effects in each
                        of three routes.  Acute toxicity is not
                        considered in the SPHE system.
                                 168

-------
    SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION (SPHE) SYSTEM (Continued)


GENERAL DESCRIPTION:    Noncarcinogenic toxicity factors are derived
(Concluded)             using estimates of the minimum effective
                        dose (MED,   ^. or MED,. u ., „.  ^, as
                                 (oral)       (inhalation)'
                        applicable) of the chemical that induces an
                        irreversible effect and the severity factor
                        (RVe) developed for the chemical as part
                        of the CERCLA Reportable Quantities (RQ)
                        system.  The route-specific noncarcinogenic
                        toxicity constants are calculated as follows:

                        water:  ^ = 2 x RVe/MED(oral)

                        soil:   stn = 0.0001 x RVe/MED(oral)
                        air:    atn = 20 x RVe/MED(inhalation)

                        Carcinogenic toxicity constants are derived in a
                        similar fashion using the dose to experimental
                        animals that induces a particular tumor to occur
                        in 10 percent more of the exposed animals than in
                        the control group (ED-j^).  The route-specific
                        carcinogenic toxicity constants are calculated as
                        follows:

                        water:  wfcc = 2/70 x ED10
                        soil:   s_  - 0.0001/70 x EDin
                                 tc                 iu
                        air:    atc = 20/70 x ED10

                        The constants in all of the above equations
                        reflect reference human values (70 kilograms body
                        weight, 20 m^/day inhalation rate, 2 I/day water
                        ingestion rate, and 100 mg/day soil ingestion
                        rate) used to convert dose units into ambient
                        concentration units.

                        Several other factors are considered subjectively
                        in determining the indicator chemicals, in
                        addition to the indicator score:  persistence
                        of the chemical, weight of evidence for
                        carcinogenicity, water solubility, vapor pressure,
                        Henry's constant, and organic carbon partition
                        coefficient.
                                 169

-------
    SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION (SPHE) SYSTEM (Concluded)
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:    The only similarities between the HRS and
                        the SPHE systems are that both address
                        noncarcinogenic chronic effects and
                        persistence on a route-specific (or
                        pathway-specific) basis.

DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:   There are numerous differences between the
                        HRS and the SPHE system.  First, the HRS
                        toxicity score depends heavily on the
                        relative acute toxicity of the chemical in
                        question.  The SPHE system does not address
                        acute toxicity.  Second, the SPHE system
                        considers carcinogenic effects, while the
                        HRS does not.  Third, the SPHE system
                        indirectly considers the mobility of the
                        chemicals, in terms of their basic chemical
                        characteristics.  No consideration is given
                        to contaminant mobility in the HRS.
                        Finally, the SPHE system includes the
                        measured or estimated chemical concentration
                        at the site in question in determining the
                        indicator score.  The HRS uses concentration
                        data only to establish observed releases.

CONCLUSIONS:            The approach to deriving toxicity constants
                        in the SPHE should be evaluated in terms of
                        possible adaptation for use in the HRS.  The
                        remaining aspects of the SPHE are either
                        not sufficiently defined (e.g., use of
                        persistence and mobility information) to be
                        employed in the HRS or require data beyond
                        the scope of a current site inspection.

REFERENCES:             ICF Incorporated, Superfund Public Health
                        Evaluation Manual, (Draft), ICF Incorporated,
                        Washington, DC, October 1, 1985.
                                170

-------
C.2  Other Systems Identified




     This section presents summaries of two reports that reviewed




chemical hazard ranking systems.  The first report reviewed




23 systems, while the second reviewed 34 systems.  Five of the




systems reviewed are included in both sets of reviews.
                                 171

-------
            REVIEW OF 23 CHEMICAL HAZARD RANKING SCHEMES
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Twenty-three schemes for ranking the hazard
associated with wastes and waste
constituents are reviewed in the indicated
reference (see Table C-l for a list of these
23 schemes).  (Note that 34 other systems
which were developed more than 10 years ago
were also briefly reviewed in the indicated
reference.  Most of these schemes were
developed for use as screening tools for
prioritizing chemicals for further study.
They were not meant to rank the relative
hazard of chemicals.  Most of these early
systems were considered in the development
of the current systems included in the
review.  Consequently, they are not
considered further in this summary.)

All but the last two systems listed in
Table C-l are used by or proposed for use by
a variety of Federal agencies, States, and
foreign governments.  These last two systems
are early systems that are no longer being
used.

These systems have been developed by a
variety of Federal agencies, States, foreign
governments, trade associations, and private
organizations.

All but the last two systems in Table C-l
have been developed within the last 10 years
and are either currently being used or have
been proposed for use in calculating the
hazard (i.e., relative risk) associated with
waste streams and waste constituents.

The 23 hazard ranking schemes fall into
three categories:  classification schemes,
risk analysis models, and numerical
schemes.  Thirteen of the hazard ranking
schemes are classification schemes, 4 are
models, and 6 are numerical schemes.  The
classification schemes use specific technical
criteria (e.g., 11)50 of less than x^ to
                                 172

-------
                              TABLE C-l

             LIST OF 23 CHEMICAL HAZARD RANKING SYSTEMS
               INCLUDED IN ENVIRON CORPORATION REVIEW
EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE/CHEMICAL RANKING SCHEMES

        Selected Criteria Processing
        Assessment of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment,
        Storage and Disposal Facilities
        RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model
        Toxicity Scoring System Using RTECS Data Base
        Integrated Environment Management Program
        OTS Chemical Scoring System

OTHER FEDERAL SCHEMES

     •  U.S. Army Hazard Multi-Media Estimating and Ranking Scheme

STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE RANKING SCHEMES

        Alaska
        California
        Louisiana
        Maryland
        Michigan
        Rhode Island
        Washington

FOREIGN RANKING SCHEMES

     •  EEC Ranking Algorithm for Water Pollutants

OTHER RANKING SCHEMES

        Chemical Manufacturers Association
        Dow Chemical
        Soap & Detergent Association
        American Paper Institute and National Forest Products
        Association
        National Paint and Coating Association
        Weyerhauser Company
        Booz-Allen Barring Model
        PHL Model
                                 173

-------
      REVIEW OF 23 CHEMICAL HAZARD RANKING SCHEMES (Concluded)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SIMILARITIES TO HRS:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
REFERENCES:
categorize wastes into specific hazard
classes such as low, medium, and high hazard.
The modeling schemes are basically risk
analysis models, employing complex
submodels, and have to be run on a computer.
The numerical schemes use numerical scales
to assign values to factors based on
specified hazard characteristics of the
waste (e.g., acute toxicity, persistence,
carcinogenicity).  The value for each hazard
characteristic is weighted and combined to
obtain a single numerical hazard value for
the waste or waste constituent.

Both the numerical schemes and
classification schemes represent
alternatives to the Sax rating scheme used
to assign values to the HRS toxicity factor.

The modeling schemes are not comparable to
the HRS toxicity factor (e.g., see the
discussion of the RCRA Risk-Cost Policy
Model in Appendix B).

The various numerical and classification
schemes all need to be evaluated further to
assess their applicability to the HRS.  One
of the major concerns with these schemes is
the availability of the data required by
them to rank the large number of substances
that are hazardous under CERCLA.

Environ Corporation, Review and Analysis of
Hazard Ranking Schemes, Final Report,
May 11, 1984.
                                 174

-------
     REVIEW OF 34 SCORING SYSTEMS FOR CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
SYSTEM:
USER:
DEVELOPER:
USE/STATUS:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Thirty-four scoring systems for chemical
hazard assessment are identified and reviewed
in the indicated reference (see Table C-2
for a list of these 34 schemes).

These systems are used by a variety of
Federal agencies, quasi-governmental
organizations (e.g., National Cancer
Institute, National Academy of Science),
States, foreign governments, and industries
(see Table C-2).

These systems have been developed by a
variety of Federal agencies, quasi-
governmental organizations, States, and
private organizations (see Table C-2).

The scoring systems reviewed are intended to
be used for one of two purposes:  to select
or prioritize chemicals for testing or to
select or prioritize chemicals for regulation
or control.  The scoring systems reviewed
have been used to score pesticides, new
chemicals, food contaminants, synthetic
organic chemicals, and hazardous wastes.
Some of the scoring systems were also
developed to deal with specific
environmental compartments such as the
atmosphere or aquatic life.  Some were
developed to assess risk to specific
populations such as employees of selected
industries, users of consumer products, or
residents near a landfill.  The various
scoring systems have been used to score
anywhere from 6 to 28,000 chemicals;
however, only 8 systems have been applied to
over 500 chemicals.

For each of the 34 scoring systems, the
review article identifies why the system was
developed, who developed the system, who the
system was developed for, the factors used
in the scoring, the algorithms by which
scores are combined, and the universe of
substances to which they have been applied.
                                 175

-------
                                TABLE C-2

  LIST OF  34  IDENTIFIED  SCORING  SYSTEMS  FOR CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
     System
   User
     Developer
Pesticide Manufacturing
Air Prioritization

Sequential Testing for
Toxicity Classification

Index of Exposure

Chemical Hazard
Ranking System

System for Evaluation
of the Hazards of Bulk
Water Transport of
Industrial Chemicals

Barring Model
Select Organic Compounds
Hazardous to Environment

Ranking Algorithm for
EEC Water Pollution

Setting Priorities for
R&D on Army Chemicals

System for Rapid Ranking
of Environmental Pollutants

Estimating Hazard of
Chemical Substances to
Aquatic Life

Estimation of Toxic
Hazard—A Decision Tree
EPA/IERL


Not identified


EPA

CPSC


U.S. Coast Guard
Not identified
National Science
Foundation

EEC
USAMRDC,
Fort Derrick

EPA/ORD
Not identified
Industry
Monsanto


Eastman Kodak Co.


Auerbach Associates

ITT Research Institute


NAS
Booz-Allen Applied
Research

Stanford Research
Institute

Stanford Research
Institute

Stanford Research
Institute

Stanford Research
Institute

ASTM, Committee D-19
Flavor and Extract
Manufacturer's Associates
                                 176

-------
                          TABLE C-2  (Continued)
System
TSCA-ITC Scoring
System Workshop
Action Alert System
Scoring of Organic
User
EPA/ITC
EPA/OWRS
EPA/OAQPS
Developer
Enviro Control, Inc.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
The MITRE Corporation
Pollutants

Ranking of Environmental
Contaminants for Bioassay
Priority

PHL Model

Hazard Evaluation
Procedure for Potentially
Toxic Chemicals

Selection of Chemicals
for Inclusion in a Trend
Monitoring
National Cancer
Institute
Not identified

UNEP
Federal Republic
of Germany
RCRA Risk-Cost Policy Model  EPA/OSW
ITC Scoring for
Biological Effects

Ranking of Food
Contaminants

Rapid Screening and
Identification of
Airborne Carcinogens

Michigan Critical
Materials Register
EPA/ITC
OTA
State of
California
Michigan
Department of
Natural Resources
Stanford Research
Institute
Pavoni, Hagerty, and Lee

Monitoring and Assessment
Research Center
The MITRE Corporation
ICF Inc., Clement
Associates, SCS Engineers

Clement Associates
Clement Associates
SAI
State of Michigan
                                 177

-------
                          TABLE C-2  (Concluded)
     System
   User
     Developer
National Occupational
Hazard Survey

Assessment of Oncogenic
Potential

ITC Scoring for Exposure
Order of Commercial
Chemicals on NIOSH
Suspected Carcinogens List

Identification of
High-Risk Occupational
Groups and Industrial
Processes

OECD Ecotoxicology
Testing Scheme

Chemical Scoring System
Development

Environmental Scoring of
Chemicals
NIOSH
Not identified
EPA/ITC
Not identified
NIOSH
DCCP/NCI
EPA/OPTS


EPA/OPTS


 EPA/OPTS
Ranking Animal Carcinogens   Not identified
NIOSH
Hooker Chemical
Clement Associates
EPA/OPTS
Tracer Jitco
Hazard Assessment by a
Qualitative System
French Ministere
de 1'Environment
Battelle
Oak Ridge National
Lab

Oak Ridge National
Lab

R. Squire

Association Chimie
et Ecologie
Source:  Hushon and Kornreich, 1984.
                                 178

-------
     REVIEW OF 34 SCORING SYSTEMS FOR CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
                             (Continued)
SIMILARITIES:
DIFFERENCES FROM HRS:
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the review, only two of the scoring
systems appear to have any relevance to the
HRS.  The systems are the following:

•  Barring Model
•  PHL Model

Each is used to estimate the hazard of
chemicals disposed in waste sites.  As such
they may provide alternatives to the Sax
rating scheme used in the HRS toxicity
factor.

Most of the 34 scoring systems are not
comparable to the HRS.  Sixteen are meant as
screening tools for use in prioritizing
chemicals, especially new chemicals or
suspected carcinogens, for more intensive
scientific study.  These systems are not
meant to rank the relative hazard of
chemicals for use in regulatory programs.

Fifteen of the scoring systems are meant to
identify high risk chemicals based on
exposure by selected populations.  As such
these scoring systems focus on many factors
not relevant to the HRS such as chemical
production volume, fraction of production
lost, use patterns, production emission
sources and rates, and population exposed
through production or use.

One scoring system is designed to test how
well aquatic tests predict hazard potential.

Only two of the scoring systems identified
in the review need to be evaluated further
to assess their applicability to the HRS.
These are the Barring Model and the PHL
Model.  They are reviewed in Section C.I of
Appendix C.
                                 179

-------
     REVIEW OF 34 SCORING SYSTEMS FOR CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
                             (Concluded)
REFERENCES:             Hushon, Judith and Mary Kornreich, Scoring
                        Systems for Hazard Assessment, Hazard
                        Assessment of Chemicals;  Current
                        Developments, Volume 3, pp. 63-109, Academic
                        Press, Inc., 1984.
                                 180

-------