EPA S RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND APPLICATION TO DIOXIN

Similar documents
Tittabawassee River Floodplain

TSERAWG Technical Guidance

Nature of Dioxin Contamination - Regulatory History and Authorities. Dow Chemical Midland Facility. March 15, 2010

Evaluation of PCBs and Dioxin/Furans (DxFs) Concentrations in Sediment from the Delaware Estuary

Soil Dioxin and PAH Study Urban and Rural Study Area Results

DIOXINS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH

Environmental Contamination Related to Significant Health Issues Among First Nations in New Brunswick. Union of New Brunswick Indians March 2015

The Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study

Investigating the Extraction Efficiency of Dioxins in Several Types of Aqueous Matrices by Automated Solid Phase Extraction Utilizing Disks

Human Health Risk Assessment Process Overview

9.1 Risk Calculations

CHAR CHARACTERIZATION OF THERMOCHEMICAL TREATED KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS SEED SCREENINGS

Why do we worry about Dioxins?

Government of Japan. Dioxins

Guideline for the Implementation of Canada-wide Standards for Emissions of Mercury and of Dioxins and Furans. and

PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS RELATED TO DIOXIN

Group 5 Central Portion of Areas III and IV RCRA Facility Investigation Report Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County, California

Occupational Exposure of Dioxins in Taiwan

Sarah Doll, Safer States BizNGO December 2014

Toxic Contaminants in the Surficial Sediments of the Fore River, Maine. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees Casco Bay Estuary Partnership

Region 6 Risk Management Addendum - Draft Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities

Dioxins. Government of Japan

N.J. Themelis, and P. Deriziotis Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, 500 West 120 t h Street, New York, NY 10027, USA

Health Consultation. Surface Water/Sediment and Soil Contamination at the Heizer Creek Landfill HEIZER CREEK POCA, PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE

Adam Grochowalski Kraków

Introduction: Sections I-IV

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY RISK EVALUATION. Remedial Options Work Group Meeting June 27, 2007

Urban vs. Wildland Wildfires: Implications for Assessing Dioxin & Furan Impacts. Heather Lord, Terry Obal

Chemical Constituents in Coal Combustion Residues: Risks and Toxicological Updates

Toxic Contaminants in the Surficial Sediments of the Fore River, Maine

(Received 17 July 1997; Accepted 20 March 1998)

National Inventory of Potential Sources of Soil Contamination in Cyprus

Ruud Addink and Tom Hall Toxic Report, LLC Watertown MA

Dioxins in Our Food Supply and Their Effect on Human Health

THIS IS SUPERFUND. A Citizen s Guide to EPA s Superfund Program

San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site Technical Document Review: Public Health Assessment (PHA) October 30, 2012

ELICITING HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD SCENARIOS AND ASSESSING DERMAL EXPOSURE RISK AMONG WORKERS RELATED TO MARCELLUS SHALE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ACTIVITY

Sources of dioxins in Baltic Sea herring

Kopeopeo Remediation Project

High sample throughput in a modern dioxin laboratory using dual acquisition

A. Section (a) of the description of the Facility in the preamble on page 1 of the Approval has been deleted and replaced with:

Halogens, dioxins/furans

The Framework was developed and agreed to by the MDEQ and The Dow Chemical Company without public comment and input.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore MD

Ecological Risk Assessment and the Tittabawassee River, Why, How and Who Cares

Traceability and food safety what is the relationship? Joop van der Roest Des Moines, IOWA 11 th June 2009

Dioxin emission measurements at Fortum Klaipeda, Lithuania. 25 March Report number: r01. Relation number: 96 Edition: 01

Resource consumption in cement production - Simplified. Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns co-processing wastes

Ms. Catherine Elmi. January 10, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) Stormwater Dioxin Background Report

SOURCES OF DIOXINS AND FURANS IN AUSTRALIA: AIR EMISSIONS REVISED EDITION MAY 2002

Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material: Requesting, Analyzing, Validating and Reporting Data

Coal Tar & PAHs in the Real Environment

For the purpose of this environmental compliance approval, the following definitions apply:

Kopeopeo Remediation Project

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SIERRA-CRETE TASK FORCE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF SIERRA-CRETE

ECSI Number: Responsible Party: Klamath County. QTime Number: Entry Date: 9/22/04 (VCP)

6.3.2 Exposure Assessment

Fairchild Air Force Base Atlas E Missile Site Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington

Determining: Stack testing of sources (normal operating condition)

Annual releases to air and water Inventory of Sources and Releases reporting form. Contents. About the Inventory of Sources and Releases (ISR)

Recent Findings from Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments of Waste to Energy Technologies

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM THE MILLERHILL RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTRE

APPENDIX H. Human Health Risk Assessment for Arsenic

Reuse of Contaminated Soils as Alternate Daily Cover at Landfills

Investigation of Possible PCB Impact during the Akron Airdock May 18, 2006 Fire

PCDD/F MASS BALANCE IN A COASTAL ESTUARY OF THE BALTIC SEA: A FIELD STUDY

State Standard Summaries

Watershed Plan Implementation in Oklahoma: What We Do and What We ve Learned

PUBLIC POWER = + + LOCAL CONTROL LOW RATES HIGH RELIABILITY

Hudson River Cleanup and PCBs Community Advisory Group March 22, 2012

Goal Setting: Nutrient Pollution Standards and Technology. October 29, Ephraim King OST

Risk-Based Decision Making for Site Cleanup

State of Alaska DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE CONTAMINATED SITES PROGRAM

Justine Barton, Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit, EPA Region 10. Keith Strout, CB&I Federal Services, LLC, EPA QATS Program

San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site

PCDDs/PCDFs in Soils at a Former Tannery Site-- Profiles as Evidence of PCP Contamination

EXAMINING RISK APPROACHES. Moderator: Carl Spreng Colorado Department Of Public Health And Environment

CONCENTRATIONS OF PCDDs, PCDFs AND PCBs IN SAMPLES OF BUTTER FROM 24 COUNTRIES.

Proposed Revisions to Florida s Human Health-Based Water Quality Criteria. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Meeting June 17, 2015

Dual Data Acquisition

PowerPrep TM. Automated Multi Column Sample Cleanup for Trace Analysis

Natalie K. Karouna-Renier*,1, Richard A. Snyder, Jeffrey G. Allison, Matthew G. Wagner, K. Ranga Rao

Supplemental Investigation Summary Report

Munitions Constituents That Are Emerging Contaminants

Official Journal of the European Union

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Cheryl A. Niemi Washington Department of Ecology February 9,

Analytical Results of Randomly Selected Sample Locations Within the Ettie Street Pump Station Watershed, Oakland, California

Analysis of NBI Data for California Bridges

Roots, microbes and mycelium vs Kopeopeo Canal Dioxin

IDEM Update. ACEC Indiana Environmental Business and Funding Conference September 15, 2016 The Willows, Indianapolis

DIOXINS AND THE CEMENT INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA

What can environmental monitoring tell us

CO 2 Emissions Profile of U.S. Cement Industry

Keith R. Cooper, Ph.D. Dean of Research & Graduate Programs Liberty Science Center August 4, 2005

Revised PCB Water Quality Criterion for Zones 2-6 and Enhanced Implementation for the Stage 2 PCB TMDLs for the Delaware Estuary

exposure to PCB and dioxins in Sweden

Battsengel Enkhchimeg 1, Takehiko Murayama 1, Shigeo Nishikizawa 1, Ochirbat Batkhishig , October, 2018

Transcription:

EPA S RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND APPLICATION TO DIOXIN Tittabawassee-Saginaw Rivers Contamination Community Advisory Group April 16, 2012 Helen Dawson, PhD U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dawson.helen@epa.gov or 703-603-8833 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

Outline What are dioxins? EPA s risk assessment process. What is a reference dose (RfD)? Use of EPA s new dioxin RfD at Superfund sites. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2

Dioxins Dioxins comprise a large group of chlorinated compounds: Not all dioxins are toxic, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is considered the most toxic of the dioxins, Others toxic dioxins are compared to TCDD using the toxicity equivalence factor (TEF) approach, and The total concentration of dioxins is expressed as toxicity equivalence or TEQ. Dioxins are produced as a by-product of chemical production or combustion (e.g., Agent Orange, wood pulp bleaching, backyard trash burning, and forest fires). Over the past several years, EPA, states, and industry efforts have reduced air emissions of dioxins by 90 percent so that today, most Americans have only lowlevel exposure to dioxins. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3

What Can Contribute to Dioxin TEQ? MI DEQ Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD TEF 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.0001 Dioxin Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF TEF 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.0001 Dioxin TEQ (ppt) Dioxin-like PCBs 3,3',4,4',5-PeCB 3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB 3,4,4',5-TCB 3,3',4,4'-TCB 2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB 2,3,4,4',5-PeCB 2,3',4,4',5-PeCB 2',3,4,4',5-PeCB 2,3,3',4,4', 5 HXCB 2,3,3',4,4',5'-HxCB 2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB TEF 0.1 0.03 0.0003 0.0001 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4

What are the Health Impacts of Dioxin? Cancer health effects: Exposure to dioxins at high enough levels may cause a number of adverse health effects, including cancer. (http://www.epa.gov/dioxin/pdfs/epa_dioxin-factsheet-2012.pdf) Non-cancer health effects: The most obvious non-cancer health effect if exposed to large amounts of dioxin is chloracne (severe skin disease with acne-like lesions), Developmental and reproductive effects, Damage to the immune system, and Interference with hormones 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5

Dioxin Sources and Pathways to Human Exposures SOURCES TRANSPORT DEPOSITION FOOD SUPPLY Industrial Processes Combustion Direct Discharge Runoff Erosion 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6

Potential Environmental Risk In general terms, potential risk depends on the following three factors: EPA headquarters-determined values: 1. The toxicity of the chemical: The dioxin RfD relates to non-cancer toxicity. Site-specific factors: 2. How much of a chemical is present in an environmental medium (e.g., soil, sediment). 3. How much exposure a person has: Contact with the contaminated environmental medium, and How much is bioavailable ; that is, how much is absorbed into the body relative to how much is ingested. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 7

EPA Risk Assessment Process Planning & Scoping entails collecting and reviewing data about the nature and extent of contamination at the site. Toxicity Assessment determines the toxicity or potency of site contaminants (i.e., how much of a contaminant causes harm). Exposure Assessment describes how people can come into contact with site contaminants and estimates current and future exposure to chemicals of concern. Risk Characterization determines the likelihood of harm to the population from site contaminants, by using the data collected in the first three steps. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 8

Superfund Human Health Risk Assessment Framework Planning & Scoping (Data Collection and Evaluation) Toxicity Assessment (Cancer and Non-cancer) Risk Characterization Exposure Assessment http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/risk_superfund.htm 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 9

Toxicity Assessment Hazard identification: cancer, non-cancer Dose/response relationship Cancer Expresses probability of developing cancer from a lifetime exposure to a contaminant Probability of risk value Slope Factor Unit Risk Non-Cancer Level below which no appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime is anticipated. Protective level RfD/RfC MRL (Minimum Risk Level) 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 10

History of EPA Dioxin Assessment Activities Brief History of EPA s Dioxin Reassessment Activities: EPA has been studying the health effects of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for many years. EPA s Health Assessment Document (1985) Release of External Review Draft Dioxin Reassessment: 2002-2004 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Review of draft Dioxin Reassessment: 2004-2006 NAS Report: July 2006 Release of EPA s Science Plan for Activities Related to Dioxins in the Environment: May 2009 Release External Review Draft of Dioxin Reanalysis Report: May 2010 Public Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review Meetings: July & October 2010; public SAB teleconferences: June 2010, Feb 2011, May 2011 Final SAB Review Report Released: August 2011 EPA announces plan to separate dioxin reanalysis into two Volumes: August 2011 EPA posted Volume 1 of the Dioxin Reanalysis (noncancer) on IRIS database: February 2012 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 11

What are the Non-Cancer Toxicity Values for Dioxin What do They Mean? Non-cancer: EPA issued the non-cancer reassessment of dioxin on February 17, 2012. An oral RfD of 0.7 picogram per kilogram of human body weight per day (pg/kg-day) was published in EPA s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS ) for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). A non-cancer toxicity value, or RfD, is EPA s estimate of the amount of dioxin that can be ingested on a daily basis that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12

How did EPA develop the non-cancer toxicity value for dioxin? EPA evaluated dozens of health endpoints from published animal and human epidemiological studies and developed candidate RfDs for endpoints that met EPA s rigorous study selection criteria. Two studies from a human population exposed to dioxin after an industrial accident in Seveso, Italy gave the most reliable information for developing an RfD. The RfD is based on two health effects observed in that population: Decreased sperm concentrations and sperm motility in men exposed to dioxin in early childhood compared to a population that lived nearby but did not have the same level of exposure, and Increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in newborns exposed to dioxin in utero. The peer reviewers (EPA s Science Advisory Board) agreed with EPA s approach in deriving the RfD. They noted that the changes from normal sperm counts, sperm motility, and TSH levels are of public health relevance and, therefore, appropriate for deriving an RfD. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13

What are the Cancer Toxicity Values for Dioxin What do They Mean? Cancer EPA has not published a final IRIS Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) for dioxin. When there is no available IRIS value, EPA evaluates other sources of toxicity values that are peer-reviewed and publically available. For dioxin, the Agency has considered EPA s Health Assessment Document (1985) CSF for dioxin and California-EPA s dioxin CSF (1986, 2002). A cancer slope factor (CSF) is an upper-bound estimate of the increased risk (i.e., probability) of developing cancer from a lifetime exposure to a contaminant. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14

Risk Assessment, Risk Characterization, and Risk Management within Superfund Risk Assessment Risk Management Data Collection Toxicity Assessment Exposure Assessment Risk Characterization Statutory/Legal Considerations Community Considerations Economic Factors Remedy Selection & Cleanup Levels 15 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Setting Site-Specific Preliminary Remediation Goals and Cleanup Levels Preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and cleanup levels can differ site to site: Cleanup levels are calculated to be protective for cancer and noncancer health effects, and Differences in cleanup levels are primarily based on different sitespecific exposures: How much contact is there with the contamination? How bioavailable is the contaminant? Cleanup levels are used for on-going and future cleanups as well as determining whether past cleanups remain protective. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 16

How Does Superfund Use an RfD to Calculate Site-specific PRGs or Cleanup Levels? Acceptable concentration of dioxin in soil: RfD o Oral reference dose Commonly adjusted variables: EF Exposure frequency ED Exposure duration RBA Relative bioavailability EV Dermal exposure frequency Other adjustable variables: BW Body weight AT Averaging time IR Soil ingestion rate AF Dermal adherence factor RSC Relative source contribution ABS d Dermal absorption factor SA Dermal surface area exposed ABS GI Gastrointestinal absorption fraction 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 17

What is Bioavailability? Bioavailability - The fraction of an ingested dose that is absorbed and becomes available for distribution to internal target tissues and organs. Measuring the bioavailability of dioxin in soil is complex. For example: Varies for different soil types, Varies in common animal models (rats and pigs) used to measure bioavailability, Varies depending on the material used to dose animals, e.g., corn oil, dough ball, and Varies for different forms of dioxins and different levels of chlorination. Generally assume 100% bioavailability unless a site-specific value is determined through testing. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 18

What does EPA Consider in Selecting a Remedy? Superfund s Nine Remedy Selection Criteria: Protection of human health and the environment, Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (e.g., state standards), Long-term effectiveness and permanence, Toxicity, mobility, or volume reduction through treatment, Short-term effectiveness, Implementability, Cost, State agency acceptance, and Community acceptance. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 19

Cancer Risk Level International Levels [HI = 1] Impact of the New Dioxin RfD on Sites 1E-06 1E-05 2E-04 // // // // Italy Austria, Finland Czech Republic Netherlands States are not required to implement EPA s dioxin RfD. Many States have developed target levels for dioxin in soil. Germany, Japan State Levels AZ, MD, WY FL ME MN, IA IN, KS MI AS, GM, NMI* NE, OR, DE, MS NH WA OH AK GA PA HI AL, TX 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Dioxin Soil Concentration (ppt) EPA will continue to work closely with states, particularly with states that are co-regulators managing federal cleanup programs, as EPA implements the new dioxin RfD. 4/27/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 20