&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
Washington DC 20460
EPA 560/TIIS-80-001
November 1980
Toxic Substances
Chemical Selection
Methods:
An Annotated
Bibliography
Toxic Integration
Information Series
-------
Toxics Integration Information Series EPA 560/TIIS-80-001
November 1980
Chemical Selection Methods:
An Annotated Bibliography
John N. Gevertz, Elaine Bild
Office of Toxics Integration
with the assistance of
Douglas W. Sellers
Management Support Division
Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Other Publications.in the Toxics Integration Policy Series:
State Administrative Models for Toxic Substances Management (July 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-018
Other Publications in the Toxics Integration Information Series:
EPA Chemical Activities Status Report - 1st Edition (June 1979)
EPA-560/13-79-003
Directory of Federal Coordinating Groups for Toxic Substances-
1st Edition (June 1979), 2nd Edition (March 1980) - EPA-
560/ 13-80-008
Perspectives on The Top 50 Production Volume Chemicals (July 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-027
Federal Activities in Toxic Substances (May 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-015
Perspectives on State-EPA Grant Agreements (September 1980)
EPA 560/13-80-037
EPA Chemical Activities Status Report - 2nd Edition (December 1980)
EPA-560/13-80-040 0>)
For further information, or to order copies, contact:
Industry Assistance Office (TS-799)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
••7
Toll-free Telephone: 800-424-9065
In Washington, D.C.: 554-1404
*
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The selection, ordering, and ranking of chemical substances stands as one of
the most critical, yet difficult, tasks facing those who are engaged in the
testing, assessment, and regulation of substances as well as enforcement of
those regulations. In the course of our studies of decision-making processes
in the Office of Toxics Integration, we have discovered a number of resource
materials that might serve the needs of those in other Federal agencies as
well as those in States, industry and academia. This annotated bibliography
is intended to assist those faced with decisions related to the selection of
chemicals to become aware of the state-of-the-art for those decision-making
processes. Hopefully, duplicative and overlapping efforts can be avoided
through such awareness.
It is anticipated that this bibliography will be updated and expanded. Tour
comments, suggested revisions, and additions should be addressed to: Office
of Toxics Integration, TS-777, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 755-2778. Copies of all
materials referenced in this bibliography are available for examination in the
Headquarters' EPA Library, room M2404 Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
Director
Integration Staff
111
-------
Acknowledgements
This bibliography was prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS). Document identification and retrieval,
as well as preparation of originalabstracts, was conducted
primarily by Tracer-Jitco, Incorporated, under contract to
the Management Support Division of OPTS. Ginny Shreve of
Tracor-Jitco was principally involved in the effort; Doug
Sellers of the Management Support Division was Project
Officer. John Gevertz of the Office of Toxics Integration
served as Technical Monitor.
IV
-------
Tablet of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Chemical Selection Methods 3
-------
INTRODUCTION
This bibliography is intended to provide individuals interested in chemical
selection (priority setting, ranking, indexing, sorting) with a co-lleotian of
relevant materials. Examination of such materials may prevent unnecessary
duplication of effort and aid in the development of new useful methods to
assist in selecting chemicals of concern. The selection methodologies listed
here were developed by EPA, other Federal agencies, State agencies and
contractors for these agencies, as well as industrial, academic and public
interest organizations.
Included with each entry is a brief abstract. Some of the abstracts were
prepared specifically for this effort; others accompanied the original
documents.
Chemical selection has been and continues to be of interest to many groups
concerned with the regulation of toxic substances. For example, the Toxic
Substances Control Act (Public Law 94-469) requires the Environmental
Protection Agency to compile an inventory of chemical substances manufactured,
imported, or processed in the United States for commercial purposes. By
June 1980, over 55,000 chemicals were included in this Inventory. EPA is also
responsible for determining which of these chemicals may require testing,
which should be subject to information gathering rules, and which might
require regulatory controls. Making these types of determinations requires
"selecting" small groups of substances from larger groups.
Because of the large number of potentially toxic substances and the variety of
actions possible under numerous Federal and State authorities, development and
use of systematic selection methodologies has become a necessity. Of course,
use of systematic selection methods is appropriate only at certain stages in
any regulatory decision process. For example, early in any process,
candidates must be screened to identify substances clearly requiring some
assessment; later, candidates from the first group must be chosen for more
in-depth consideration; and finally, a few candidates are selected for
regulation. Thus, selection methods can be applied to candidate pools that
are large or small and to information ranging from limited to extensive.
However, selection schemes must be developed and employed "operationally";
that is, with regard to the requirements of the particular stage in the
regulatory process that is being considered.
There are also some inherent limitations in the use of any chemical selection
methodology. Most selection methods involve consideration of some or all of
the following factors: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity,
neurotoxicity, and other chronic human health effects; acute human health
effects; environmental toxicity; types and quantities of emissions, human and
environmental exposure; bioaccumulation; costs of regulations; and regulatory
1 Excluded from this inventory are mixtures, pesticides, tobacco, food, food
additives, drugs, cosmetics, firearms, and nuclear materials.
-------
authority. Any method .which involves combining various categories of
information to arrive at some single index of concern runs the risk of
rendering 'the original data meaningless.
Existing systematic selection methods generally utilize some form of scoring
or ranking which involves assigning a dimensionless or arbitrary number to
each of the factors being considered. Conversions of this type tend to
obscure the original data, and fail to incorporate a measure of uncertainty.
Suppose, for example, that the number "3" is assigned to any substances to
which between 10,000 and 100,000 persons are exposed. Not only will this
number fail to convey accurately the number exposed, it will also fail to
provide an indication of the level of uncertainty in the estimate or an
indication of the basis for the estimate (e.g., monitoring, modeling).
Another limitation to the use of many scoring methods is that they employ
simple additive or multiplicative algorithms to combine factors. Such
algorithms often ignore or distort the true relationship between factors. In
the case of an additive system, for example, suppose that for Chemical X,
carcinogenicity is assigned a "5", no information is available for six other
factors so each is assigned a "0", and persistence is assigned a "3". The
total score for Chemical X is "8". For Chemical Y, carcinogenicity is
assigned a "1", each of six other factors is also assigned a "1", and
persistence given a "3". The total score for Chemical Y is, thus, "10". It
is unclear, however, whether Chemical Y is really more hazardous than Chemical
X, regardless of the policy framework governing the evaluator.
Some methods utilize "flagging" or "triggering," as a means of selection.
"Flagging" refers to setting threshold levels or employing "discriminators"
for various factors in order to select candidates. Any chemical may be
"flagged" if it exceeds a discriminator for a single factor or, to allow for
synergism, if it exceeds the discriminators for certain combinations of
factors. The use of "flags" or "triggers" in a selection scheme avoids the
complex data manipulations required for the systems discussed above. However,
selection methodologies using "flagging" are only effective if the factors are
chosen in a careful logical manner.
Systematic selection methodologies will certainly become significant in the
selection of chemicals for assessment and regulation. Such methods provide
consistency in decision making. They also promote efficient resource
allocation. Finally, use of these methodologies will aid in the defensibility
and effectiveness of regulatory actions.
This bibliography should assist individuals in identifying previous efforts
relevant to their needs, and foster an understanding of the nature of
selection methods. Several different types of systematic selection processes
are included in this work. Those listed were chosen specifically because they
are relevant to sorting groups of chemicals. Before employing any of these
systems or developing new methods, however, the potential limitations of each
should be understood.
-------
Chemical Selection Methods
-------
Allport, J.; Casey, S.; Cook, J.; et al.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
A Study of Industrial Data on Candidate Chemicals for Testing-Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
EPA-560/5-77/006, 1977, Research Request No. 1
NTIS #PB-274 264/1GA
This report summarizes the work done by Stanford Research Institute for EPA's
Office of Toxic Substances and includes three major parts. (1) Data
previously collected on an NSF study was supplemented to provide the following
information where available on 667 industrial chemicals: (a) United States
production; (b) estimates of quantities released annually to the environment;
(c) major uses; and (d) references on mutagenicity tests. Mutagenicity data
on 25 chemicals were evaluated after developing a list of assays and criteria
for classifying the results as either positive or negative/inadequate. (2)
Tables which contain economic information on 1791 chemicals belonging to 26
structural classes considered to represent potential industrial carcinogens
and mutagens were prepared. For those chemicals with annual production
greater than one million pounds, market forecasts which present a brief
summary of production, consumption patterns, major uses, possible substitutes,
and growth trends were prepared. (3) Carcinogenicity data for all chemicals
belonging to three classes (epoxides, alkyl halides, and vinyl halides) were
used to correlate structural features with carcinogenic activity. Criteria
were developed for estimating the potential carcinogenicity of chemicals in
each class. These criteria were applied to these chemicals in each class
known to be produced commercially or for which there was evidence of
significant human exposure. The results of the study were summarized in three
separate reports.
-------
Archer, S.R.; McCurley, W.R.; Rawlings, 6.D.
Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio
Source Assessment: Pesticide Manufacturing Air Emissions—Overview and
Prioritization
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Lab
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-600/2-78/004d, March 1978
NTIS #PB 279-171/3ST " t
' &'-
The report is an overview of the pesticide manufacturing industry and ranks 80
major pesticides based on their potential environmental burden from an air
pollution standpoint. Production of synthetic organic pesticides was about
640,000 metric tons in 1974. - Thirty-seven major synthetic organic pesticides,
those with annual production" of 4540 or -more tons, accounted for 74% of the
market. Elemental chlorine is conmon to most pesticides, but other raw
materials include hydrogen cyanide, carbon disulfide, phosgene, phosphorus
pentasulfide, hexachlorocyclepentadisBe, various- amines, and concentrated
acids and caustics. Air pollution aspects of the pesticide manufacturing
industry are essentially without qttaatitatve data. For some plants, the
pollution caused by loss of active ingredients is less significant than that
caused by unreacted by-products. Evaporation from holding ponds and
evaporation lagoons may also be an emission source, although few quantitative
data are available. Emissions emanate from various pieces of equipment and
enter the atmosphere as both active ingredients and as raw materials,
intermediates, and by-products. Air emission control devices include
baghouses, cyclone separators, electrostatic precipitators, incinerators, and
gas scrubbers. Synthetic organic pesticide production in 1985 will be about
806,000 metric tons.
-------
Astill, B.D.; Lockhart, H.B., Jr.; Moses, J.B.; et al.
Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York
Sequential Testing for Chemical Risk Assessment
Presented at the Second International Congress on Toxicology
Brussels, Belgium, July 6-11, 1980
A method of quantitatively evaluating environmental and health hazard is
presented. Four categories of effects were established: the magnitude of
environmental exposure (ME), the magnitude of human exposure (MH), the effects
on human health of an exposure (H), and the effects on the environment of an
exposure (E). The criteria for MH are production per year, number of people
exposed, duration of exposure, and number of groups exposed. The criteria for
ME are amount discharged per year, number of discharge sites, number of
discharges per year, and half-life in the environment. Criteria for H are the
oral median lethal dose in rats, reversibility of immediate effects, and
reversibility of prolonged effects. Criteria for E are the 5 hour median
inhibitory concentration on waste water treatment microorganisms, the median
lethal concentration on fish, and the octanol-water partition coefficient as a
measure of bioconcentration potential.- Each criterion is given a maximum,
median and minimum range and these are ranked 1, 2, or 3, respectively. The
cumulative health or environmental score for a compound is evaluated so that
scores of 9 or less, 10 to 13, 14 to 17, or 18 or more suggest testing levels
I, II, III, or IV, respectively. Level I testing includes physical and
chemical properties, acute health effects, in vitro mutagenesis and acute
environmental tests. Level II includes 2 week feeding or inhalation tests,
skin painting tests, more mutagenesis tests, activated sludge effects,
photodegradation, biodegradation, effects on plant growth and germination and
partition coefficients. Level III includes 90 day feeding or inhalation,
fertility tests, teratology, half-life and metabolites in rodents,
nitrification inhibition, algal toxicity, 14 to 21 day biodegradation,
simulated fate study, larval fish studies, and bioconcentration factor. Level
IV includes 2 year feeding studies, 3 generation reproduction studies,
teratology, pharmacokinetics, biodegradation products, soil interaction, and
long term aquatic studies. If testing is conducted the results may then be
entered into the scoring and the total score reassessed. The authors conclude
this screening protocol is both cost and time effective. Over five hundred
chemicals have been tested over two years.
-------
Becker, D.S.
IIT Research Institute
Design of a Chemical Hazard Ranking System-Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Bethesda, Maryland
Contract No. CPSC-C-77-0068
December 27, 1978
The Consumer Product Safety Commission would like to rank the health hazards
of the chemicals in consumer products to enable them to allocate their
resources in an appropriate manner. The three main factors of consumer
chemical hazard due to consumer products are: toxicity, dose per person and
population exposed. Unfortunately, these factors are not available as
standardized statisitics, nor can they be calculated by standardized
formulas. Population exposed could be computed from marketing data for each
product, but this would be prohibitively expensive. Dose per person should be
computable from a product's known characteristics (aerosol, skin contact,
frequency of use, etc.), though accepted standardized equations do not exist.
Chemical toxic strength factors for carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens are
known for only a few percent of consumer chemicals. No standard method for
extrapolating latent toxic strength factors, from data on the tested chemicals
to the untested ones exists. Typically, these problems have been overcome 'by
having panels of experts rate the 3 factors based on unstated rules. However,
the scope of the problem for consumer chemicals favors a computerized approach
based on systematic procedures. First, such a system could efficiently
re-rank all chemicals as new data became available. Second, it is less
expensive to use automated procedures for this application. Third, it is more
precise to make all the decision criteria explicit. This report presents
uniform techniques for estimating the toxicity, dose per person and population
exposed factors and for calculating a hazard score from them. The procedures
are sufficiently general that they can be applied to all consumer chemicals
within an automated system using available data.
Branson, D.R.
Hazard Assessment of Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment
Presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology, New
Orleans, March 13, 1979
A method is presented for selecting priority pollutants based on the
principles of hazard assessment for chemicals in the aquatic environment. The
method combines environmental release rates, ambient levels in fish and water,
persistance and bioaccumulation, chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms, and
acceptable daily intake levels by humans. A case study illustrates the method
using two chemicals with fairly high environmental release rates,
di-2-ethylhexylphthalate and linear alkylbenzene sulphonate, and two chemicals
with moderately high release rates, polychlorinated biphenyl and
pentachlorophenol.
-------
Brown, S.L.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
Setting Priorities for Environmental R and D on Army Chemicals
Annual Report for 1976
Prepared for Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contract No. DAMD17-75-C-5071
NTIS #AD-A046 357/OST, January 1977
The Environmental Protection Research Division of the Army Medical Research
and Development Command is charged with recommending criteria for
environmental standards dealing with the manufacture, use, and disposal of
chemicals in Army activities. This report presents a methodology that can
assist the Army in allocating resources among candidate research and
development studies on the environmental effects of Army chemicals. The basis
of the methodology is a mathematical model of the process leading from the
initial pollution of air, water, or land to the eventual environmental effects
of the chemicals in question. The model estimates a total hazard value,
weighted among human and ecological effects, with a corresponding uncertainty
due to lack of knowledge. The allocation methodology then compares the
reduction in hazard uncertainty expected to be achieved after a research study
with the cost of the study. Candidate studies are ranked according to this
ratio.
-------
Brown, S.L.; Chan, F.Y.; Jones, J.L., et al.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
Research Program on Hazard Priority Ranking of Manufactured Chemicals
5 volumes
Prepared for National Science Foundation
Washington, D.C.
NTIS #PB-263 161/2ST; #PB-263 162/OST; #PB-263 163/8ST; #PB263 164/6ST; #PB263
165/3ST, April 1975
The research effort by SRI was divided into two phases. In Phase I, the
universe of manufactured organic chemicals was reduced to 250 chemicals
according to the highest calculated values for the release rates for these
chemicals. Data on relevant physical and chemical properties for these
chemicals were presented to the Advisory Panel during its meeting in Menlo
Park, California, on August 26-27, 1974. From this list of 250 chemicals and
from a list of 41 chemicals designated by the Advisory Panel as 'Most Wanted
Chemicals', the members of the Advisory Panel selected 80 chemicals for Phase
II study, as the chemicals with the greatest potential for environmental
effects. In Phase II of this two-phase effort, 80 chemicals having the
greatest potential for environmental effects were studied. Information was
collected on the extent of the environmental exposure to these chemicals
(during manufacture and use) and on the possible environmental effects of this
exposure (chemical, physical, and biological properties, persistence, and
toxicity). A questionnaire survey of industry was conducted to determine the
amount and types of losses in the manufacturing plants. Information from this
survey is tabulated. The following summary reports are submitted for each of
the 80 chemicals: (1) A flow diagram showing industrial data on the amounts
used for various applications; (2) a one-page assessment of the data gathered
on toxicology and environmental persistence; (3) a computer printout of a
tabular summary of the important data gathered; and (4) copies of the 25 most
pertinent abstracts found in the area of toxicology. The report • is divided
into five volumes.
The first volume contains chemicals 1-20: Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium
chloride, Benzo(a)pyrene (BAP), Tetraethyl lead, Vinyl chloride,
Hexachlorobenzene, o-Cresol, Ethylbenzene, Nonylphenol, ethoxylated (9 moles
of ethylene oxide), Hexachlorobutadiene, Vinylidene chloride, Toluene,
Ethylene dibromide, Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate, Ethylene dichloride,
Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, Carbon tetrachloride, Chlorinated
paraffins (35-64% chlorine), Perchloroethylene, Dichlorodifluoromethane.
The second volume contains chemicals 21-40: Benzene (chemical uses), Silicone
fluids, Nitrobenzene, Toluenediisocyanate (TDI), Xylenes - mixed total,
Aniline, Dimethyl terephthaiate, Trichlorofluoromethane, p-Dichlorobenzene,
Tetrabromoethane, Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline), Polyhalogenated biphenyls
(Aroclor 1254), Tricresyl phosphate, Fluorescent brightening agents (no. 28),
Polyvinyl chloride, Methylene chloride, Dichloropropene, Dichloropropane
mixture, and Ethyl chloride.
-------
The third volume contains chemicals 41-60: (Ethylenedinitrilo)tetraacetic
acid, tetrasodium salt, Benzidine, Zinc di(butylhexyl) phosphorodithioate,
N-(Dimethylpentyl)-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, Vinyltoluene, Methyl bromide,
Mercaptobenzothiazole, Chloroform, Acetontrile, Di(ethylhexyl) phthalate, Vat
Blue Dye no. 6 (Dichloroindanthrone), Di(ethylhexyl) adipate, Dimethylamine,
Dichlorobenzidine, Hexamethylenetetramine, Acyclic xanthic acid salts (Sodium
isopropylxanthate-Dow Z-ll), Sulfolane-p-Nonylphenyl manganese phosphite,
Nitrilotriacetic acid (trisodium salt), and Diarylarylenediamines (mixed)
( Wingstay 100).
The fourth volume contains chemicals 61-79: Polyacrylonitrile (fibers),
Naphthalene, N,N-Dimethyldodecylamine oxide, Chloroprene, Formaldehyde (37% by
weight), Bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium chloride, Methyl
chloride, Dioxane, Ethylene oxide, Allyl chloride, Ethylenimine, Phenol,
Tri(chloroethyl)phosphate, Polyethylene glycols (MW 400), Methoxyethanol,
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid(sodium salt), Bis(chloroethyl) ether, Dodecyl
mercaptan, Polyurethane and diisocyanate resins, and Ethylene.
The fifth volume contains a listing of the references for the data collected
and general notes describing the data.
Brown, S.L.; Holt, B.R.; McCaleb, K.E.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
Systems for Rapid Ranking of Environmental Pollutants: Selection of Subjects
for Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Health and Ecological Effects
Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/5-78/012, June 1978
NTIS #PB-284-338/1ST
This document reports the results of the development and testing of a system
for rapidly ranking environmental pollutants. One potential use for the
system is in choosing the most important candidates for Scientific and
Technical Assessment Reports (STAR). Of several possible approaches to
ranking environmental agents, a system depending on expert opinion but
assisted by an objective subsystem was selected for development. The system
defines procedures for collecting, processing, and evaluating data on
production and use; environmental transport, transformation, and rate; and
human health and welfare and ecological effects. A test of the objective
subsystem confirmed the utility of the system. Of ten candidate agents, the
three highest ranked were cyanides, carbon disulfide, and beryllium.
10
-------
Carins, J.; Dickson, K.L., Maki, A.W.
Estimating the Hazard of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life
Hydrobiologia, 64(2):157-66 (1979)
A conceptual framework for conducting a hazard assessment is presented.
Various toxicity tests and procedures for evaluating hazards to aquatic life
are compared, and the decision criteria used in these procedures are
discussed. The use of safety factors or "uncertainty factors" is discussed as
a central concept in a sequential testing approach in which estimates of
expected chemical concentrations in the environment and their effects can be
made with an increasing degree of accuracy. The state of the art of assessing
hazards from chemicals to aquatic life is reviewed; safety, hazard, and risk
concepts involved in such assessments also are discussed. Particular
attention is given to hazard assessment procedures developed by the American
Society for Testing Materials, American Institute of Biological Sciences, and
Monsanto.
Cleland, J.G.; Kingsbury, G.L.; Sims, R.C.; White, J.B.
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Multimedia Environmental Goals for Environmental Assessment. 4 Volumes
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-600/7-77/136a, EPA600/7-77/136b, November, 1977, EPA600/7-79/176A,
EPA600/7-79/176B, August, 1979
NTIS #PB-276 919/8ST, #PB276 920/6ST, #PB-115108, #PB80-115116
The report gives results of a study of the derivation of Multimedia
Environmental Goals (MEG's). MEG's are levels of significant contaminants or
degradents (in ambient air, water, or land, or in emissions or effluents
conveyed to the ambient media) that are judged to be: appropriate for
preventing certain negative effects in the surrounding populations or
ecosystems; or representative of the control limits achievable through
technology. In the context of deriving MEG's, Volume I: offers perspective
on the broad range of contaminants whose control is vital to both industry and
the public; further develops and defines indicators designating contaminants
which must be given priority consideration for immediate control and for
subsequent research; brings existing and emerging data together for use in
environmental assessment; and explores some basic methodologies which provide
the present MEG's, and which also suggest directions for refined
methodologies. MEG's are projected for more than 650 pollutants. Of these,
216 receive full attention in Volume II. MEG charts along with the Background
Information Summaries for these substances are presented in this volume which
includes 162 organic and 54 inorganic substances. Volumes III and IV address
586 organic compounds. Volume III includes the following categories:
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons; Alkyl Halides, Ethers; Halogenated Ethers and
Epoxides; Alcohols, Glycols, Epoxides; Aldehydes, Ketones; Carboxylic Acids
and Derivatives; Nitriles; Amines; Azo Compounds, Hydrazine Derivatives;
Nitrosamines. Volume IV includes the following categories:
Thiols, Sulfides, Disulfides, Sulfonic Acids, Sulfoxides; Benzene, Substituted
Benzene Hydrocarbons; Halogenated Aromatic Compounds; Aromatic Nitro
Compounds; Phenols; Halogenated Phenolic Compounds; Nitrophenols; Fused
Polycyclic Hydrocarbons; Fused Non-alternant Polycyclic Hydrocarbons;
Heterocyclic Nitrogen Compounds; Heterocyclic Oxygen Compounds; Heterocyclic
Sulfur Compounds; Organophosphorus Compounds.
11
-------
Cramer, G.M.; Ford, R.A.; Hall, R.L.
Estimation of Toxic Hazard - A Decision Tree Approach
Food Cosmet. Toxicol., 16(3):255-76 (1978)
A procedure using 33 criteria for establishing toxic hazard is presented as a
decision tree organized into branches dealing with major chemical
classifications and intended for use with all ingested, structurally defined
organic and metallo-organic substances. The criteria are based on features of
chemical structure, occurrence in body tissues and fluids, and natural
occurrence in food. The logic of the tree rests heavily on known data on
metabolism and toxicity. The classification according to presumptive toxicity
can be combined with knowledge of human intake to provide a protection index
for each substance. The index can be used to establish priorities and define
tentatively the extent of appropriate testing. It is noted that the procedure
has been applied to a large number of pesticides, drugs, food additives, and
industrial and environmental chemicals of known biological properties.
Because the procedure has not yet resulted in any underestimation of toxicity,
it is seen as a practical means for discriminating effectively among different
levels of probable hazard.
Dorsey, J.A.; Johnson, L.D.; Statnick, R.M.; et al.
Environmental Assessment Sampling and Analysis: Phased Approach and
Techniques for Level 1
Prepared for U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-600/2-77/115, June 1977
NTIS #PB-268 563/4ST
The report discusses a three-level approach to sampling and analysis for
environmental source assessment. A research program was initiated to develop
a sampling and'* analytical approach for conducting environmental source
assessments of the feed, product, and waste streams associated with industrial
and energy processes. An environmental source assessment identifies potential
air, water, and terrestrial problems for both regulated and unregulated
pollutants. The three-level sampling and analysis approach resulted from this
program. Level 1 is a complete survey of all streams, using simplified,
generalized sampling and analytical methods which permit priority ranking;
i.e., hazardous streams are distinguished from those less hazardous or
relatively innocuous in nature. Level 2 is detailed sampling and analysis of
the streams ranked in the highest priority by the Level 1 survey. Other
streams may then be addressed according to potential hazard. Level 3 involves
continuous monitoring of 'key1 indicator materials to evaluate the effect on
emissions of process variability.
-------
Envi.ro Control Inc.
Rockville, Maryland
Scoring Chemicals for Health and Ecological Effects Testing
Proceedings of TSCA-ITC Chemical Scoring System Workshop, February 25-28, 1979
Since its inception in early 1977 the TSCA-Interagency Testing Committee has
submitted to the EPA Administrator four reports recommending a total of 33
chemicals and chemical categories to be tested for their potential to cause
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In order to identify
these chemicals from among the approximately 44,000 chemicals in commercial
production in the United States today i't was essential for the Committee to
have procedures for ranking chemicals as to the need for testing to deterine
their hazard to human health and the environment.
The Committee used existing source lists of hazardous chemicals to form a
Master File, as described in the Committee's Initial Report to the
Administrator. This list of 1,700 chemicals was subjected to scoring, first
on the basis of production, release, operation, and exposure, and subsequently
on the basis of biological activity. The scoring procedure was developed in
conjunction with Clement Associates, Inc., the ITC's support contractor during
its first two years of operation, and is described in this report.
In an effort to make any possible improvement in this numerical scoring system
the ITC decided to subject the scoring system to the scrutiny and criticism of
individuals from academia, industry, and government who are expert in the
various aspects of release, exposure, and effects that make up the system.
Enviro Control, Inc. was awarded a contract to organize a scoring workshop and
to prepare a report on the proceedings. The workshop was held in San Antonio,
Texas, February 25-28, 1979, with approximately 80 technical experts
par ti c i pat ing.
13
-------
Fiksel, J.; Segal, M.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
An Approach to Prioritization of Environmental Pollutants: The Action Alert
System
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Monitoring and Data Support Division
Washington, D.C.
Contract No. 68-01-3857
Final Draft, June 1980
The Action Alert System was developed to assist the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards in evaluating available data, setting priorities,
and determining appropriate actions. The system can aid in sorting large
groups of chemicals into "manageable clusters" for further examination.
Required data elements are concentrations - including drinking water, human
diet, and ambient water - and effects data - including chronic mammalian,
acute human or mammalian, and aquatic toxicity. Six auxiliary modules have
been developed to serve as surrogates in some cases where data are lacking or
to enable use of more extensive data where it exists. This report includes a
detailed description of the conceptual development of the system, a
presentation of the six auxiliary modules, and a user's guide. The user's
guide provides detailed instructions for. the application of the action alert
system to the ranking of specific chemicals.
14
-------
Flinn, J.E.; Thomas, T.J.; Bishop, M.D.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio
Identification Systems for Selecting Chemicals or Chemical Classes as
Candidates for Evaluation
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
EPA-560/1-74/001
NTIS #PB-238 196/OGA, November 1974
This report is a review of various systems for selecting, assessing, and
ranking chemicals for their health and environmental effects. Systems for two
general areas are considered: health planning, including environmental,
occupational, and general health; and environmental management. It is noted
that the term "system" is broadly defined to include not only formalized
organizational structures, models, and methodologies, but also less formal
tools, methods, and working groups which have been created to rank chemical
substances or effects. Existing systems are classified in several ways. Some
are considered information repositories for chemical data, particularly
toxicity data. Other systems are classified with respect to whether their
function is to identify chemical substances before or after general exposure
of the public and the environment occurs. Each of these types is further
categorized into those which identify new or unrecognized chemical "stressors"
and those which evaluate recognized "stressors11. Particular attention is
given to methods used by various Federal agencies. It is concluded that most
existing systems are deficient in that they (1) focus on acute rather than
long-term effects; (2) have a limited domain of concern; and (3) are not
designed to identify hazards from degradation products, synergistic effects,
or effects on the nonliving environment. An appendix summarizes results of a
seminar on "Early Warning Systems for Toxic Substances" held January 30 -
February 1, 1974.
Fuller, B.; Hushon, J.; Rornreich, M.; et al.
Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia
Preliminary Scoring of Selected Organic Air Pollutants, 5 Volumes
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
EPA-450/3-77/008a,b,c,d,e, October 1976
NTIS #PB-264 442/5ST
This report presents a scheme for evaluating the relative hazard to humans
resulting from air emissions during production of synthetic organic
chemicals. Data on production, fraction lost during production, volatility,
and toxicity have been compiled for 637 organic chemicals. A scoring system
using these data elements was developed and is described in this report.
Scores assigned to the 637 chemicals are presented. Four appendices were
published with this report. The appendices are dossiers containing chemistry,
production, and toxicity data for the 637 synthetic organic chemicals.
15
-------
Jones, C.J.
The Ranking of Hazardous Materials by Means of Hazard Indices
J. Hazard. Mater., 2:363-89 (1977-78)
Several indexing models for use in landfill management, transport of dangerous
goods, environmental quality assessment, and other areas are reviewed.
Suggestions are then presented for developing a hazard index for evaluating
waste management options. The procedure involves listing the materials or
wastes of interest and the management or disposal options to be considered.
The properties of the materials or wastes which are relevant to the evaluation
process are obtained from the existing literature or from laboratory
measurements. A combination model appropriate to the management situation
must then be constructed. The author recommends the additive utility model,
but notes that other models may be more appropriate in certain cases. The
normalized indexes for each material and the relative utility range for each
property are derived from the data and the overall index is calculated using
the combination model. The overall indexes must reflect the actual properties
of the material in combination with the relative importance attributed to each
property by the weighting factor. The author observes that if the combination
model is mathematically sound, the use of an indexing and combination model
allows versatility in quantifying value judgements about aspects of a given
material's environmental behavior.
Keith, L.H.; Telliard, W.A.
Priority Pollutants. I. A Perspective View
Environ. Sci. Technol., 13(4):416-23 (1979)
The historical origins of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Priority
Pollutants and the development of the Priority (Water) Pollutants Protocol are
related. Events are traced beginning with the court decision in 1978 that
resulted in adoption of the EPA Consent Decree to control the levels of
pollutants in industrial wastewater discharges. Components of the decree are
reviewed, including formation of the Toxic Pollutant List to aid in the
classification of harmful substances. It is noted that since the decree
lacked allowance for time in solving analytical problems in testing for these
substances in wastewaters, the EPA adopted four criteria to prioritize and
select representative compounds from each group. First, all compounds
specifically named on the Toxic Pollutant List were automatically included.
(The availability of chemical standards for verification and quantification
was considered mandatory). Second, compounds not found on the list should be
tested if they accounted for five percent or more of the total known listing
for the class of compounds. Third, all chemical production data should be
reviewed where available. Fourth, other sources were examined to determine if
the compound was a recognized water pollutant. Next, the screening,
verification, and monitoring strategy developed by EPA for testing water for
pollutants is presented. Unresolved problems in the screening stage are
discussed, along with automated software programs being adopted to speed up
the analysis process. Future plans and first drafts for implementation of the
monitoring phase are considered, and a list of the 129 compounds on the Toxic
Pollutant List is included.
16
-------
Kimerle, R.A.; Gledhill, W.E.; Levinskas, G.J.
Monsanto Co., Environmental Assessment Department, St. Louis, Missouri
Environmental Safety Assessment of New Materials
In: Cairns, J.; Dickson, K.L.; Maki, A.W.; Eds.
American Society for Testing Materials STP No. 657:132-146 (1978)
A procedure is presented for evaluating the hazard to aquatic organisms of new
materials prior to their commercialization. The procedure uses environmental
fate and aquatic organism toxicity data in the sequential phases of screening,
predicting, confirming, and monitoring to reach a decision either to continue
the toxicity testing, terminate the project because of unacceptable risk, or
cease testing because of an acceptable risk. The screening phase involves
short term acute tests, while the predictive phase involves short and long
term laboratory studies. In the confirmation phase, environmental field
studies are designed to answer critical questions of environmentfal safety.
In the monitoring phase, field studies under actual use conditions after
commercialization are conducted to confirm the ultimate safety of the
material. The types of tests in each phase and the criteria which determine
which specific tests are needed are presented. The criteria for evaluating
whether or not a hazard exists also are discussed.
Margler, L.W.; Rogozen, M.B.; Ziskind, R.A.; et al.
Science Applications, Incorporated, Los Angeles, California
Rapid Screening and Identification of Airborne Carcinogens of Greatest Concern
in California
J._Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 29(ll):1153-7 (1979)
The method used by the California Air Resources Board to identify quickly and
rank potentially serious airborne carcinogens is described. Eight lists of
carcinogens were compared after eliminating chemicals not used in California,
pesticides, chemicals unstable in air, or doubtful carcinogens. Further
eliminations were made if production or use was under 100,000 pounds per
year. The investigators included a few additional compounds. Candidate
substances were ranked by additive and multiplicative algorithms and by a
panel of experts. For the additive algorithm, the rating of a substance was
the sum of the scores of each rating factor multiplied by a weighting factor.
For the multiplicative algorithm, the substance rating equaled the product of
the rating factors. The criteria rated were: 1) present use, 2) use trends,
3) emission potential, 4) stability in ambient air, 5) dispersion potential,
and 6) evidence of carcinogenicity. Those compounds appearing in the top
eleven of at least two lists were selected for further study. The substances
selected were arsenic, asbestos, benzene, cadmium, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, nitrosamines,
perchloroethylene, and polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons. The authors
found this screening approach efficient.
17
-------
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Bureau, Environmental Services Division,
Critical Materials Register 1979
Lansing, Michigan
Publication No. 4833-5323 (1979)
A methodology for ranking materials hazardous to the aquatic environment is
presented. The hazard assessment process considers acute toxicity,
carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, persistence, bioaccumulation,
and other adverse effects such as subacute and chronic toxicity,
embryotoxicity, phytotoxicity, and aesthetics. Chemicals are numerically
scored as to their hazard, and the criteria and rationale for the scoring
system are discussed. Chemicals receiving a high score are seen as posing a
high environmental concern and are included in the register. Literature
citations are provided for the chemicals selected to be studied. The 178
chemical substances on the 1979 register are listed. Michigan Critical
Materials Registers date back to 1971. These reports are referenced in the
1979 Register, the methodologies employed are discussed, and the lists of
chemicals are presented.
Nees, P.O.
Hooker Chemical Company, Niagara Falls, New York
Assessment of Oncogenic Potential - A Scoring Matrix to Determine Oncogenic
Potential Proposed for Application in Risk Assessment
In: Toxic Substances Control, Vol. Ill - Implementing the Regulatory Program
Miller, M.L., ed., Government Institutes, Incorporated
Washington, D.C. pp. 168-82, 1979
A scoring matrix for oncogenic risk assessment that assigns weighted number
values to subjective and objective results of studies is described. Positive
lifetime animal studies received a primary score of 4, multiplied by
metabolism, route of administration, and quality of study factors. This
result is then weighted with a dose level 'factor and a time until tumor
appearance factor. Negative results start with a minus primary score and the
time weighting is correlated to survival. Epidemiology studies have a primary
score of 10 multiplied by specificity of tumor type, suitability of controls,
indirect association, relative risk, mixed exposure, and specificity factors,
and added to a detectability of increased cancer incidence factor. The
resulting adjusted primary score (AP) is weighted by adding AP times a dose
response factor to AP times a consistency of association factors to AP times
an exposure level factor. There is also a weighting for repetitive
epidemiological studies to compensate for low confidence level in a single
study. Negative studies start with a primary score of 6 and have fewer
factors. For short term genetic, microbial and fluid assays individual test
scores are small, positive or negative, and the only weighting factor is for
supportive data. The sum of all the scores is ranked on an index of oncogenic
potential that correlates the total score to an appropriate regulatory
response. The author concludes that the scoring matrix can be used by people
with little experience. An expert review panel would be necessary only if
questions arose. The assessment could change with the results of new studies.
18
-------
Pielmeier, 6.R.
Tracer Jitco Inc.
Rockville, Maryland
Identification of High Risk Occupational Groups and Industrial Processes Using
RTECS/NOHS Data-Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Public Health Service
Center for Disease Control
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies
Cincinnati, Ohio
Contract No. 210-78-0076, November 1979
Two NIOSH data files, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances and
the National Occupational Hazard Survey, contain data that pertain to the risk
posed to workers by toxic chemicals in the workplace. In order that
occupationally and industrially defined groups of workers at high risk might
be identified and given their proper priorities in NIOSH activities,
algorithms were developed which (1) combine data from the two data files
identified above, (2) produce indexes of the potential risk to workers in
specific occupations and industries, and (3) rank the chemicals to which
workers are exposed in terms of their toxicological hazard and their potential
risk to all workers. The steps involved in development of these algorithms
are described in this report. Five indexes are developed: Hazard Risk Index,
Adjusted Hazard Risk Index, Occupational Risk Index, Industry Risk Index, and
Occupation within Industry Risk Index. Typical pages from the indexes are
presented.
19
-------
Ross, R.R.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Welch, J.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances
Proceedings of the EPA Workshop o» the Environmental Scoring of Chemicals
Washington, D.C., August 13-15, 1979
EPA-560/11-80-010, May 1980
The environmental scoring of chemicals is viewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as a tool to assist in the ranking or ordering of the
universe of chemicals that are under the jurisdiction of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The purpose of scoring is to identify most of the chemicals that
have a high probability for requiring review for regulation or testing. This
report describes a three-day workshop held in Washington, B.C., August 13-15,
1979, to develop an environmental scoring system. Initial discussions
centered on the determination of a safety factor (calculated as the
concentration at which an. effect is observed divided by environmental
concentration) that would allow a numerical score to be assigned to a chemical
to reflect its potential hazard. Further discussion, however, indicated that
the environmental concentration of a chemical is usually not available and
that the estimation of an environmental concentration is not readily
accomplished; therefore, a scoring system was developed that does not require
environmental concentrations. This system relates environmental exposure to
toxicity by using a multiplier (3x, 2x, or Ix) which is assigned on the basis
of the concentration at which an effect is observed. The applicability of the
scoring system is demonstrated by scoring selected chemicals.
20
-------
Stacey, G.S.; Flinn, J.E.
Battelle Columbus Labs, Ohio
Development of an Economics-Based Methodology for Projecting Future Pollution
Problems
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Health and Ecological Effects
Washington, D.C.
EPA-600/5-78/011, June 1978
NTIS #PB-284 337/3ST
The report describes a project designed to develop a methodology for
identifying potential future toxic substance pollution problems. • An approach
was desired that would be systematic, comprehensive, and futuristic. The
methodology developed is based on exposure and initiates the identification of
problems by focusing on the potential for their occurrence in the production,
exchange, and consumption of goods and services. Products are ranked
according to the potential they have for being associated with future
pollution problems. For the high ranked products, additional information on
the chemical constitu nets of the product are identified. The final step is to
analyze the chemical constituents to determine which chemicals occur
frequently and in large quantities. At the same time the potential that each
of the chemicals has for resulting in toxic substance problems would be
assessed. In ranking the products, parameters concerning historical growth,
future growth, dispersion, technical change, and value of shipments were
developed and applied. A specific group of products was examined to determine
their chemical content. The results of this effort showed that identifying
chemical constituents of products required considerable resources. The final
step of analyzing chemicals to determine frequency and quantity was developed
conceptually, but due to resource limitations could not be applied.
-------
Stanford Research Institute
Menlo Park, California
An Automated Procedure for Assessing Possible Carcinogenic Activity of
Chemicals Prior to Testing
Prepared for National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Contracts: N01-CP-33285 NIH-NCI-71-2045
This report discusses the systematic application of information regarding the
carcinogenicity of chemicals to the prediction of carcinogenicity activity of
untested chemicals. The method focuses on structural relationships between
the chemicals being examined and known carcinogens. The development of an
activity tree is presented for implementing a procedure for ranking chemicals
prior to testing in laboratory animals. The activity tree method classifies a
large number of chemicals by asking a series of increasingly more specific
questions about their chemical structure. Expert consultants then offer
estimates regarding the probability of any chemical in an end point of the
tree being carcinogenic and the relative potency of the carcinogenic activity
if the chemical proves to be carcinogenic. A level of confidence is
attributed to each estimate. Estimates are also made specific to the four
routes of administration (i.e., oral, inhalational, dermal, and prenatal) of
the compound to the test animal, corresponding to the routes used in the
exposure estimates. For the development of this activity tree, six experts
offered their considerations on five classes of substances known to contain
carcinogens: naturally occurring substances, aliphatic nitrogen-containing
compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aromatic amines, and inorganic
compounds. Their reports are summarized and the current activity values for
the tree are given. An appendix describes computer implementation of the
activity methodology.
Stanford Research Institute
Menlo Park, California
Criteria and Procedures for Chemical Selection
Prepared for Chemical Selection Working Group, National Cancer Institute,
Bethesda, Maryland
Contract: NOl-CP-95607
October, 1977
This report describes the criteria and procedures used by the Chemical
Selection Working Group to select chemicals for NCI's carcinogenesis bioassay
program. Chemicals are nominated for consideration by a variety of government
agencies and others. A two-step process is then used for selection. The
first-step involves gathering limited data to determine if the chemical meets
qualifying criteria. In order to qualify, a chemical must: (1) not currently
be undergoing testing by the NCI bioassay program or other programs; (2) not
have been adequately tested previously; and (3) have high annual consumption
or evidence of exposure from environmental occurrence. If the chemical meets
these criteria more extensive selection criteria are then applied. This step
involves analyses of: 1) exposure information including consumption, use
patterns, human exposure, and environmental occurrence; and 2) evidence for
possible carcinogenic activity including human data, animal data, short-term
tests, metabolism, and structural/activity relationships.
22
-------
Stephenson, M.E.
National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
An Approach to the Identification of Organic Compounds Hazardous to the
Environmental and Human Health
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 1:39-48 (1977)
Results are presented from a workshop ranking hazardous chemicals and
identifying key problem areas for future research. Eighty organic compounds
were ranked according to their environmental impact and their hazard to human
health. A scatter plot of the 80 compounds indicating their relative ranking
in terms of both criteria showed that 10 organohalides require immediate
study. Major impact or problem areas around which future research could be
organized include: 1) natural sources of organic compounds; 2) contribution
to biochemical and geochemical pools; 3) effects of transport and
translocation of toxic elements and micronutrients; 4) toxic degradation
products and formation of secondary pollutants; 5) remote effects; 6)
persistence in the absence of other effects; and 7) bioaccumulation. It is
also recommended that the environmental impact and human health hazard of the
carbon chlorine bond be studied. Production figures and estimated annual
release rates for the 80 compounds are given.
TSCA Interagency Testing Committee: Initial Report to the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
42 FR 197:55025-80, October 12, 1977
Section 4(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the
establishment of a committee to identify and recommend to the EPA
Administrator chemical substances which should be tested to determine their
hazard to human health or the environment. This report documents procedures
used by the TSCA-Interagency Testing Committee for selecting those chemical
substances recommended for testing. Reasons for each recommendation are
outlined. Available data and potential for carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, and chronic toxic effects were all considered, as was the ability
of the substances to bioaccumulate or cause deleterious environmental
effects. A scoring system which took into account both available information
and the lack of it for these factors was used in the screening process.
Categories or substances recommended for further testing include alkyl
paraffins, chloromethane, cresols, hexachloro-l,3-butadiene, nitrobenzene,
toluene, and the xylenes. The formation of the Interagency Testing Committee,
its responsibilities, and the approach used in forming the recommendations are
discussed. Sources of data used in the preparation of the initial substances
list are listed. A linear weighting scheme used to rank the substances is
discussed.
23
-------
United Nations Environmental Programme
Initial Report on the Priority Pollutants Project
Nairobi, October 1978
Results are presented from the initial phase of the priority pollutants
project. The objectives include: (1) compiling a list of hazardous chemicals
which have been given priority consideration by governments and other
organizations, (2) proposing a systematic process for selecting priority
pollutants with emphasis given to the needs of developing countries, and (3)
identifying several lists of chemicals or categories for further UNEP
attention. Section 2 includes a compilation of approximately 230 selected
substances of concern to various national and international institutions.
Section 3 discusses the general problems associated with identifying and
ranking environmental hazards. It includes a discussion of the distinguishing
features between developed and developing areas which give rise to different
sets of priorities for environmental pollution. This section concludes by
outlining the selection criteria to be used in a ranking system for both
developed and developing areas. Criteria include exposure, carcinogenic!ty,
mutagenicity, teratogenicity, acute toxicity, other health effects, the
influence of nutrition and infectious disease on toxicity, persistence and
bioaccumulation, and environmental agents. The method uses expert opinion,
information on structure activity relationships, and production and
environmental exposure data in a multistage screening process where a
relatively large number of substances are considered initially. In subsequent
steps a smaller subset is selected for collection of more data and more
thorough review. Section 5 suggests several categories of hazardous
pollutants which may be of interest to the United Nations Environment
Program. For each area an interim list of priority pollutants is proposed.
Van Netten, C.
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Critical Review of Strategies Aimed at Identifying Chemicals Hazardous to
Human Health and the Environment
Prepared for Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada,
March 8, 1978
Criteria are presented for evaluating the effectiveness of existing chemical
screening strategies. Environmental criteria include production and release,
distribution in the atmosphere, degradation, bioaccumulation, toxicity, as
well as synergistic and antagonistic effects within the environment. Human
health criteria include exposure of the total population or specific groups,
distribution of the substance within the body, accumulation and excretion,
general toxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, and possible
synergistic and antagonistic effects in humans. Decision making criteria are
used to evaluate whether the recommendations made by the different screening
procedures allow easy access to information so that specific decisions can be
made. Six screening methods are then assessed by these criteria. The author
suggests that an optimum combination of these methods could be derived which
would reject a maximum number of chemicals at a minimum cost.
24
-------
Venezian, E.G.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Pre-screening for Environmental Hazards - A System for Selecting and
Prioritizing Chemicals
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C.
EPA/560/1-77/OOZ, April 1977
Alternatives were considered for pre-screening chemicals for their potential
to cause environmental hazards. A system design concept which takes into
account both the toxicity of the chemical and the eventual levels which it can
be expected to reach in the environment was selected for further analysis. It
is noted that, although neither toxicity nor eventual levels can be predicted
with great accuracy, the accuracy attainable by simple methods appears
adequate for selecting and ranking chemicals for additional investigation. A
specific design which relies on data which are usually available was developed
to the point of testing the feasibility of collecting the necessary data and
performing the required computations on five chemicals.
25
-------
30273-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
I !._ REPORT NO.
L EPA 560/TIIS-80-001
3. Recipient1 * Accession No.
4. Title end Subtitle
Chemical Selection Methods: An Annotated Bibliography.
Integration Information Series
Toxics
s. Report Dete November 1980
date of publication
7. Author**) John N. Gevertz (EPA/OTI), Judy Hoffman (Tracor Jitco),
and Elaine Bild (EPA/OTI) .
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
Tracor Jitco, Inc.
1776 East Jefferson Street
Rockville, MD 20852
10. Project/Task/Work UnK No.
Technical Directive 25
11. Contract(O or GranMQ) No.
(Q 68-01-6021
(6)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
18. Abstract (Limit 200 words)
•Regulatory agencies charged with control of toxic chemicals have examined and are
examining various methods to select chemicals of concern from the universe of chemical
substances. Chemical selection refers to such activities as priority setting, ranking,
indexing, and sorting. These efforts have included the development of various
systematic selection methods such as scoring systems. This annotated bibliography is
intended to provide interested individuals with a variety of methods for chemical
selection.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
p. Identlfiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSAT1 Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
19. Security Class (This Report)
Unclassified
20. Security Class (This Pace)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.1B
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute. 1430 Broadway. New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound report—for example, each volume in a multivotume set—shall have its unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization in accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). ror registration of report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercase letters, Arabic numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as in the following examples: FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
RD-75/09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for
the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g.,
date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. mjuert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with ... Translation
of... Presented at conference of... To be published in ... When a report is revised, include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report.
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1964 COSATI Subject Category List Since the
majority of documents are imiltidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement Denote public refeasabilrty, far example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, if known.
19. A 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification in accordance with U.S. Security Regulations (i.e.. UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages. Including introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22. Price. Enter price in paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) if known.
OPTIONAL FORM Z72 BACK (4-77)
•U.S. OOVJBHHEKT PBINTIHa OFFICE: 198O-O-629-Wl/2971t
------- |