Words: 3985
The Chemical and Hazardous Waste Emergency Management Program (SCHEME) as initiated and developed by the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in response to the growing concern on and the urgent need to address the Issues and problems related to the risks of chemicals and hazardous wastes to the environment. Since its inception in 2002, the Program has been subject of technical and financial assistance from the US Agency for International Development (SAID) through the us-Asia Environmental Partnership Program (US-APE).
There are more than 100,000 chemicals being used, manufactured. And Imported in the Philippines. As of December 2004, EDEN registered 3,801 hazardous wastes generators. Based on the submitted reports, the generators produce 226 million tones of hazardous wastes annually. The hazardous wastes are classified as plating wastes; acid wastes; alkali wastes; Inorganic chemical wastes; reactive chemical wastes; paints, resins, lattices, inks, dyes, adhesives, and organic sludge; organic solvents; putrescence’s and organic wastes; textile; oil; containers; immobilizers wastes; organic chemicals; and miscellaneous wastes.
Significant amounts of chemicals are Increasingly being used and considerable illume of hazardous wastes are generated in the country with the fast development and rapid industrialization in the Philippines. To cope, address, and respond to emergencies and incidents related to the use, storage, handling, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous wastes, the Environmental Management Bureau, together with different government agencies and Industrial associations and organizations, formalized a Technical Working Group to develop the Chemical and Hazardous Waste Emergency Management Program (SCHEME).
The objective of the Philippine SCHEME Is to establish a national framework for encountered action by the Industry, government, and community to address Incidents involving chemicals or hazardous wastes. For the purposes of this Program, radioactive materials are excluded. Within the purview of the country disaster In line with the national development and implementation of the Chemical and Hazardous Waste Emergency Management Program, the Environmental Practitioners Association was selected by the SAID/US-APE to assist the government agencies in establishing the Emergency Response Teams.
The main approach is through government-private partnership and active participation of the industrial and manufacturing sectors that utilize these chemicals and generate these hazardous wastes, making use of existing industry associations and civic organizations as mediums of project implementation. II.
The Philippine Chemical and Hazardous Wastes Emergency Management Program The objective of the Philippine Chemicals and Hazardous Wastes Emergency Management Program is to establish a national framework for concerted action by the industry, government, and community to address incidents involving chemicals or hazardous wastes. For the purposes of this Program, radioactive materials are excluded. Within the purview of the country disaster management system, the actions are classifiable as preparedness and response.
As a framework, the Program fleshes out the major elements of a chemicals and hazardous wastes emergency action plan such as: Organization and personnel responsibilities Planning, hazards analysis, and plan updating Training Drills and exercises Facilities, supplies, and equipment Detection, alarm, and notification procedures Response functions Containment and cleanup Documentation and investigative follow-up While it establishes the critical and major plan elements, the Program assigns to coal planning committees the adaptation of the elements to suit actual local conditions.
Hence, the Program is a guide for the formulation of local emergency management plans. The local plan will depend on the hazards existing in the area, I. E. , types of chemicals and hazardous wastes, local geography and climate, time variables, particular characteristics of chemical and wastes facilities and transportation routes, and the capabilities of local industry, government, and community. The legal authority for the Program emanates from the following statutes: 1 . Republic Act No. RA) 6969, also known as the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990 – This empowers the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (EDEN), among others, to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the importation, manufacture, processing, sale, distribution, use, and bureau, office, agency, state university or college, and other instrumentalities of the rent for assistance in the discharge of functions. 2. ) Presidential Decree No. PDP) 1185, the Fire Code of the Philippines – The decree assigns the enforcement of the Fire Code to the Bureau of Fire Protection (BP). Under he Code, the owners, administrators or occupants of buildings, structures, and their premises or facilities and other responsible persons are required to comply with a fire safety inspection by the BP; the implementation of fire safety measures for the manufacture, storage, handling, or use of hazardous materials; safety measures for hazardous operation and processes; and fire safety construction, protective, and warning system. . ) PDP 1 586 which established the country Environmental Impact Statement (IIS) system – The system classifies certain projects or areas including those which involve he use of chemicals and the generation or management of hazardous wastes as environmentally critical. For such projects or areas, an environmental compliance certificate (SEC) issued by the President or his representative, either the EDEN Secretary or Director or Regional Director of the Environmental Management Bureau (EMBED), is required prior to development and operation.
The SEC contains the key conditions which must be satisfied by the project proponent in order to protect or enhance the environment. The basis for the SEC is the IIS and an environmental risk assessment (ERA). The ERA discusses the hazardous substances and situations of the project; consequences of major accidents, their probability of occurrence, and estimation of the risk; and safety management system for the project. . ) PDP 1 566, the overarching law of the country on disaster management – The salient provisions are: state policy on self-reliance among local officials and constituents in responding to disasters; organization of the National, Regional, and Local Disaster Coordinating Councils; Provincial Governors, City Mayors, Municipal Mayors, and
Barraging Chairmen who as the local chief executives lead the disaster management efforts in their respective areas; preparation of the National Calamities and Disaster Preparedness Plan (UNCAP) by the Office of Civil Defense (COD) and implementing plans by the National Disaster Coordinating Council (INDUCE) member agencies and local disaster coordinating councils; conduct of periodic drills and exercises; and authority for local government units (Lugs) to program funds for disaster preparedness activities. 5. ) RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991 – The act reinforced the susceptibilities of local chief executives on disaster management.
This Program is consistent with the disaster management framework established by PDP 1 566 and the Calamities and Disaster Preparedness Plan (CD). It recognizes the following principles: The responsibility for disaster management leadership rests on the Provincial the country shall utilize all available resources in the area before asking for assistance from neighboring entities or higher authority. The national government exists to support the local governments in times of emergency and according to its bevel of assignment; all national government offices in the field shall support the operations of the local government.
While emergency preparedness is a Joint responsibility of the national and local governments, its effectiveness depends largely on the skills and resources and the involvement of private organizations and the general public in the area of disaster. The ideal approach to disaster management is the all-hazards, all agency, multi-sector’s, and community-based approach. HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM Key changes were made in the waste characteristics factor category; the gizzards waste quantity factor is now multiplied by toxicity and other factors, instead of being added as they were in the original HRS.
This is one of several changes that make the revised HRS more consistent with risk assessment principles. GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY The ground water migration pathway in both the original and revised HRS valuates the likelihood that hazardous substances at a site or facility will migrate through the ground below and contaminate aquifers (underground formations holding usable amounts of water) and any drinking water wells that draw on those aquifers. The revised HRS ground water pathway has the same general structure as in the original HRS.
However, every factor has been revised. The most significant revision assigns weights to the target population based on distance from the site to account for dilution in the aquifer. In addition, the area (target distance limit) in which drinking water wells are considered has been expanded. A new factor, travel time, has been added to the potential-to-release calculations. In the waste characteristics category, the mobility of each hazardous substance is considered, rather than resistance as in the original HRS.
The original HRS did not consider the direction of ground water flow in determining which populations or environments could be affected by the migration of hazardous substances at the site. The targets category gave equal weight to the entire population drawing water within 3 miles of the site. After evaluating several options for considering ground water or contaminant flow directions, EPA decided to retain the original system, based on cost and technical considerations.
Accurately determining local flow within the target distance would quire considerable expenditure of time and public funds, which EPA believes is liquefied only at the nation’s highest priority sites that is, those already on the NIP. However, where there is known contamination, the target populations are weighted higher than those only potentially exposed. Thus, the revised HRS indirectly considers direction of substance migration by assigning weights to people drinking the nearest exposed individual factor. Likelihood of Release.
The potential-to-release to ground water is comparable to the route characteristics / containment portion of the original HRS. EPA has made a number of changes in how potential releases are scored. In the original HRS, values for depth to aquifer, net precipitation, permeability, and physical state were added, then multiplied by the value of a fifth factor, containment. The revised HRS uses four factors: Containment, which measures the means taken at a site to minimize or prevent releases of contaminants into ground water.
Net precipitation, which indicates the amount of water available to infiltrate into ground water. Depth to aquifer, which provides a measure of the time required for a contaminant to reach the underlying aquifer. Travel time, which measures the potential of geologic materials to slow the migration of contaminants to aquifers. The potential to release is the sum of the values of the first three factors multiplied by the value for containment. Waste Characteristics.
The waste Characteristics category of the original HRS included toxicity / persistence and hazardous waste quantity factors. The method used to evaluate persistence, however, was based on biodegradability and was generally not applicable to ground Neater. In addition to these changes in waste quantity and toxicity, the revised HRS places persistence with a mobility factor reflecting the rate at which a substance migrates. Combining mobility with the revised toxicity factor allows for discrimination among highly toxic substances that migrate at very different rates. Targets.
The targets category reflects the population potentially at risk from an actual or potential release of hazardous substances from the site to an aquifer. The revised HRS expands the target distance limit from 3 to 4 miles. Within that limit, four factors lintiest of two) are considered: nearest well, population, resources, and Wellhead Protection Area. The nearest well is a new factor in the targets category and is evaluated by measuring the distance to the nearest drinking water well. In the original HRS, the person using the nearest well was considered in a matrix with population.
The two are now separate factors. The second factor, population, indicates the number of people actually or potentially at risk from exposure to hazardous substances in drinking water wells. In the original HRS, all the people who drank water from wells within 3 miles of the site Nerve counted equally. The total population was then combined in a matrix with stance to the nearest well to assign a single value. The revised HRS separates these factors to more clearly reflect individual risks and resource value/population risk.
Population served is the sum of three groups: People exposed to contamination above health-based benchmarks for example, Federal drinking water standards. People exposed to contamination not above health-based benchmarks but significantly above background. People potentially exposed, weighted for distance. Ere resources factor, a more comprehensive measure, has replaced the ground Neater use factor in the original HRS. The presence of a Wellhead Protection Area, as designated under Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, is a new factor in the targets category score.
This revision addresses SARA Section 1 18, which requires a high priority for sites affecting around a well or well field supplying a public water system through which potentially harmful contaminants are likely to move toward and reach the well or well field. SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY The surface water migration pathway in both the original and revised HRS valuates the likelihood that runoff containing hazardous substances from a site can eve through surface water and affect people or the environment.
The revised HRS differs from the original HRS in several ways. The revised HRS: Replaces route characteristics with two potential-to-release components overland flow/flood and ground water to surface water. If both components are scored, the pathway score is the higher of the two scores. Divides the surface water pathway into three subway’s representing threats to drinking water, the human food chain, and the environment. The surface water migration pathway score is the sum of the scores of the three subway’s.
This change in structure provides a relatively simple way to account for the different substances and targets that may be important for the different types of potential exposure in the subway’s. Extends the distance to the targets at risk from the probable point where hazardous substances enter the surface water to a point 15 miles from the source (versus 3 miles downstream of the farthest observed contamination, or 1 mile in static water, in the original HRS). The target values are modified by dilution weighting – that is, lower value is assigned to a larger body of water because the substance is more diluted. Drinking Water Threat. He drinking water threat in the revised HRS retains the waste quantity and toxicity/ persistence factors of the original HRS but evaluates them differently. Persistence is no longer based solely on biodegrading but on four additional decay processes hydrolysis, photolysis, popularization, and free-radical oxidation). For each hazardous substance in (or likely to be in) surface water, a persistence value is assigned that reflects the time the substance remains in the surface water. The substance with the highest toxicity/persistence value is used, along with the hazardous waste quantity, calculating the waste characteristics score.
The drinking water targets category in the revised HRS retains the use and population factors of the original HRS but substantially modifies them. Instead of the four uses in the original HRS use factor, with only the highest assigned a value, two uses (drinking water and other uses) are assigned values, providing a better evaluation of the risk to the resource. The distance to a surface water intake in the original HRS has been replaced with a nearest intake factor that is evaluated separately and is based on dilution at the nearest intake.
As in the revised ground Neater pathway, the population served is evaluated in three groups based on actual and potential exposure. The population potentially exposed is weighted based on dilution. Human Food Chain Threat. SARA Section 105(a)(8)(A) requires EPA, in revising the HRS, to consider the effects of hazardous waste sites on the human food chain. In chain risks involved contamination of the aquatic food chain. Therefore, the revised surface water migration pathway includes evaluation of the human food chain based on potential or observed contamination of aquatic food chain organisms.
In evaluating waste characteristics (and targets as well), a single hazardous substance is selected, on the basis of fasciculation potential, toxicity, and persistence, from among those known to be present at the site and available to the surface water migration pathway. Persistence is determined based on the same five decay processes as in the drinking water threat. The targets category reflects the threat to people from consumption of fish and shellfish taken from the surface water migration pathway. Fishery use for example, commercial, subsistence, or sport fishing is evaluated to give an estimate of resource value.
Population is calculated by estimating food chain products harvested from the contaminated surface water. Population is the sum of actual and potential contamination, and is determined based on fasciculation and annual production of each fishery in the surface water migration pathway. Environmental Threat. In the surface water pathway of the original HRS, the sensitive environments were assigned value in the targets category on the basis of distance to a particular type of sensitive environment – wetlands, for example.
The revised HRS places more emphasis on environmental damage and expands the types of environments insider. Ecosystem toxicity is determined using EPA chronic water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (or other measures if the criteria are not available). Ecosystem persistence is evaluated as it is for the drinking water subways. The sensitive environments targets are weighted into groups based on ecologically-based benchmarks where sensitive environments are contaminated; otherwise, dilution factors are applied.
SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY The soil exposure pathway evaluates the potential threats posed by direct, hysterical contact with hazardous wastes or contaminated soil. It is similar to the direct contact pathway, which was scored in the original HRS but was not used to determine if a site should be on the NIP. The revised HRS evaluates the threat by looking at two groups potentially at risk – those living on property with hazardous wastes or contaminated soils and those living nearby with access to the property. The resident population is evaluated based only on presence of contamination within the site boundary and within 200 feet of the boundary.
The resident population is not evaluated on release potential, as in the other pathways, because contaminants do to have to migrate offsets for exposure to occur. Five targets are evaluated in the resident population: Resident individual: a person living on, or going to school or day care on, contaminated property. Resident population: people living on or going to school or day care on contaminated property. Workers: people working on contaminated property. Resources: contaminated property used for commerce, agriculture, sculpture, contaminated property: aquatic environments are considered in the surface water migration pathway.
The nearby population is evaluated on the basis of: Attractiveness/accessibility and area of contamination, which evaluate the likelihood of exposure. Population within a I-mile travel distance of the site. Nearby Individual. AIR MIGRATION PATHWAY The air migration pathway of the revised HRS has the same three categories as the original HRS, but each is revised. The original air pathway was evaluated only if an observed release of hazardous substances could be documented.
As required by SARA Section 105(a)(8)(A), the revised HRS considers characteristics of the site to assess the potential for release if none has been documented. The likelihood of release is determined, as well as how many people and sensitive environments could be exposed to hazardous substances carried in the air and the inherent hazard associated with potential exposures. The potential to release by gases an particulates is evaluated separately based on: Containment, which assesses the ability of natural or constructed barriers to inhibit the escape of hazardous substances from a source.
Source type – for example, containers (including tanks), contaminated soil (including land treatment), fire sites, landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles. Migration potential, which reflects the relative tendency of hazardous substances contained in a source to migrate. In addition to the changes to waste quantity and toxicity in the waste characteristics category discussed earlier, the reactivity and compatibility factors in the original HRS have been deleted because they have proved not to be applicable to the vast majority of NIP sites; mobility has been added.
All hazardous substances at site are evaluated for gas mobility. Particulate mobility is evaluated based on the local climate. The two values are combined in a matrix to determine the mobility actor. In the revised HRS, the three target factors in the original HRS land use, population within a 4-miles radius, and distance to a sensitive environment have been modified, and a factor has been added to reflect the risk to the nearest individual. The 4-mile limit for population in the original HRS has been retained; the limit for sensitive environments evaluated has been extended from 2 to 4 miles.
In both cases, distance weighting factors are used to represent the reduced concentrations farther away from the site. After scores are calculated for one or more pathways, they are combined using a tot-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score. The electronic scoring tool Quicker can be used to do the scoring calculations. If all pathway scores are low, the site score is low. However, the site score can be relatively high even if only one pathway score is high.
This is an important requirement for HRS scoring, because some extremely dangerous sites pose threats MANILA BAY OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN Manila Bay is the economic gateway of the Philippines because of the fact that the majority of the economic activities of the Philippines take place in Metro Manila and TTS environs. The major mode of transporting goods and cargo from Manila to other parts of the country and to other countries is sea transportation. An average of 30,000 vessels a year enter Manila bay and call on its ports.
A majority of these diesels, which include tankers, passenger and cargo ships, either utilizes oil as fuel or carries it as their cargo. Ship-sourced pollution may result from either accidental or illegal operational discharge of these vessels. Oil spills can also emanate from the oil refineries within the bay during the loading and unloading of petroleum products. A number of depots can be found in Manila Bays shoreline namely: a. Patron Depot in Rosaries, Cavity, and Llama, Bataan; b. Total Depot in Tendon, Manila,and Marseilles; Bataan Unlit Depot in Lucian, Marseilles, Bataan d.
Jetty Depot in Manic, Cavity e. Bataan Petroleum Terminal Inc. In Lima Bataan f. Total Illiquid in Barraging Alas-Asian, Marseilles, Bataan From February 1998 to December 2004 a total of 18 oil spills occurred within Manila Bay. Out of the 18 spills, nine happened in the Province of Bataan, namely in the ports of Lima and Marseilles with a total volume of 789,751. 00 liters. It should be Response Strategies Strategy for Open Sea If a spill will occur in open waters and because of the semi-enclosed nature of the bay, the likelihood that it will reach shore is very high.
Shoreline clean-up is more costly and labor intensive than to contain and recover the spilled oil in open sea. It is therefore prudent that, if ever possible the spill be contained and recovered near the source and prevented from reaching shore. With this in mind, the following strategies will be adopted: (a) Mechanical containment and recovery (b) Chemical dispersion Strategy for Coastal Zones The coastal zone is defined here as the transition zone between open water and the shoreline.
Many of Manila bays coastal zones are utilized as marl-culture areas and ecologically important areas that are sensitive to most oil spill response operations. These areas do not normally allow the use of large recovery systems as in open water, but may still be unfavorable by smaller boats. Ere main strategies for coastal zones are: a) Mechanically contain and recover b) Deflect from sensitive resources c) Use of sorbets for sensitive coastal zone.