After the monitoring of Omaha Steel’s air emissions in November
and December, 2003, local government officials asked the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a branch of the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) to assist in interpreting the data. The ATSDR’s
June, 2003 report on this initial monitoring is reprinted below.
Based on this monitoring, the ATSDR and Omaha World Herald reported there
is little about which to be concerned regarding Omaha Steel Castings’ emissions.
However, the monitoring occurred only over three 24-hour periods, making
it a preliminary pass. One Douglas County health department official stated
they would do additional monitoring if the money were available. Read the
ATSDR report and judge for yourself whether the results are definitive.
The ATSDR did recommend additional monitoring for Omaha Steel’s
semi-volatile emissions, which has just been completed. However, the data
has yet to be analyzed. Watch this newsletter for a report on this second
round of monitoring.
HEALTH CONSULTATION
OMAHA STEEL CASTINGS - DUNDEE NEIGHBORHOOD AIR
OMAHA, DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA
BACKGROUND
The Douglas County Health Department (DCHD) asked the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to evaluate
available air monitoring data on whether the levels of air toxics
pose a potential health concern. Residents complain of smells
and respiratory problems, including asthma, chronic coughing,
burning eyes, runny nose, shortness of breath, etc., and are
concerned that the levels of chromium, naphthalene, and phenols
are the cause.
This report contains ATSDR's answers to the following questions:
Question 1: Does airborne semi volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) present a health hazard for
the community?
Question 2: Does airborne volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) present a health hazard for the community?
Question 3: Does airborne metals present a health hazard for the community?
MONITORING DATA
DCHD collected ambient air
samples over a 3-day period (Nov, 5 and 13, and Dec. 10, 2002)
at 3 different locations. The Eastern Research Group (ERG) analyzed
those samples and provided DCHD with the monitoring data in January
of 2003. DCHD subsequently asked the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch (U.S. EPA/APDP) to
review that data. EPA completed its review in March and sent
the results to DCHD on April 2, 2003.
EPA concluded that the only pollutants that were above any
long-term health benchmarks were benzene and 1-3 butadiene. Of
the SVOCs (semi-volatile organic compounds), only naphthalene
and phenol were observed at all three monitors at levels significantly
higher levels than those found elsewhere. None of the contaminants
measured exceeded noncancer health benchmarks for chronic, lifetime exposure.
Finally, EPA suggested that the observed ambient levels of chromium
compounds "may pose a long-term excess cancer
risk to the general public." Again, however, no non-cancer
health benchmarks were exceeded.
In a letter dated April 17, DCHD asked ATSDR to address the
issue of whether or not the levels of ambient air pollutants
posed a potential health concern. While many different chemicals
were monitored by DCHD during the Dundee Neighborhood Air Toxics
Study, only those about which the community has expressed specific
concerns are listed below. For chromium compounds, the average
and maximum values are listed; for phenol and naphthalene, the
full range of concentrations (i.e.,
min - max) is indicated.
- Chromium 0.0026 µg/m3 (max, 0.0589 µg/m3)
- Phenol 0.03 to 11.0 µg/m3 (0.007 to 2.86 ppb)
- Naphthalene 0.07 to 5.4 µg/m3 (0.013 to 1.03 ppb)
DISCUSSION
As noted earlier by EPA, except for benzene, 1,3-butadiene
(of the VOCs), and chromium compounds (of the metals), none of
the airborne substances detected by DCHD in ambient air samples
collected during Nov-Dec 2003 were present at concentrations
that exceeded any health-based comparison values. Maximum concentrations
of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and chromium compounds exceeded long-term,
health screening values i.e., those based on potential cancer
effects. However, lifelong exposure to even the maximum detected
levels of these substances would not pose a cancer hazard to
exposed residents. Cancer-based comparison values are generally
based on the assumption that any exposure to a carcinogen, no
matter how low, may increase a person's risk of developing cancer.
EPA and ATSDR both find such cancer-based values to be useful
screening tools. As EPA noted in its 1986 Carcinogen Risk Assessment
Guidelines, "such an estimate, however, does not necessarily
give a realistic prediction of the risk. The true value of the
risk is unknown, and may be as low as zero."
Prolonged inhalation exposure to high, occupational levels
of hexavalent chromium (CrVI) are carcinogenic to humans. Trivalent
chromium (CrIII), the form most commonly found in environmental
samples of "chromium compounds," is actually an essential nutrient.
Environmental samples usually contain CrVI and CrIII in a ratio
of about 1:7 . Nevertheless, if one were to assume, as a "worst-case
exposure scenario," that the "chromium compounds" in the DCHD
Study consisted exclusively of CrVI, and that residents were
exposed chronically throughout their entire lives to the average
detected level (0.0026 µg/m3), the resulting exposure dose
would correspond to a hypothetical lifetime excess cancer risk
of only 3.3 additional cases of cancer per 100,000 people. However,
the lowest occupational exposure reportedly associated with elevated
lung cancer in humans (40 µg/m3 for 1-49 years) is more
than 15,000 times the average level detected in air by DCHD (ATSDR
2000).
EPA's reference concentration (RfC), which represents a level
of chronic, inhalation exposure that would not be expected to
produce any detrimental non-cancer effects during a human lifetime,
is 0.1 µg/m3 for CrVI. That is 38 times higher than the
average detected level of total chromium compounds (0.0026 µg/m3)
in the DCHD study.
ATSDR's chronic EMEG (Environmental Media Evaluation Guide)
for naphthalene in air is 2 ppb or about 10.5 µg/m3. The
maximum concentration of naphthalene detected in air during the
DCHD study was only half that (5.4 µg/m3). Furthermore,
ATSDR's EMEG contains a built-in safety factor of 1000. In other
words, the EMEG is 1000 times lower than the "less serious" LOAEL
(Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) on which it was based,
i.e., inflammation of the nose and lung in mice chronically exposed
to 10,000 ppb naphthalene for most of their lives (ATSDR 1995).
EPA's RfC is even more conservative; it is 3 µg/m3 and
includes a safety factor of 3000 (IRIS).
Consumption of or dermal contact with large amounts of phenol
in the concentrated liquid form could be both irritating and
toxic. In smaller amounts, however, phenol is a common antiseptic
and anesthetic ingredient in sore throat lozenges, sprays, and
gargles (ATSDR 1998). Although EPA has established no MCL for
phenol, several thousand ppb would be considered safe in drinking
water. Because phenol is not particularly toxic via the inhalation
route under normal circumstances, ATSDR has no health-based comparison
values for phenol in air. However, for purposes of comparison,
both the 8-hr Time-Weighted Average Threshold Limit Value (TWA-TLV)
of the ACGIH and the 10-hr Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) of
NIOSH are 5 ppm (>19,000 µg/m3) phenol in air which
is more than 3000 times higher than the highest level of phenol
detected in air during the DCHD study.
Limitations of the Data
Sampling was conducted appropriately for evaluating chronic
(long term) exposures to chemicals. The most protective benchmarks
for most chemicals detected are those based on chronic long-term
exposures. Naphthylene and phenol, however, are better known
for producing eye and throat irritation during peak short-term
exposures, which subsides once air concentrations have dropped.
Since facility operations are heavier during the first shift,
the facility is expected to produce more of these chemicals during
the first 8-hours. Therefore, although the 24-hour sampling is
adequate for evaluating long-term exposures, it is likely to
underestimate the acute peak exposures necessary for evaluating
the impact of the irritants.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these limited data, ATSDR concludes that:
- Airborne levels of SVOCs pose an indeterminate health hazard
for Dundee neighborhood residents. While the levels of SVOCs
measured do not present a health hazard, they may underestimate
peak exposures.
- Airborne levels of VOCs do not present a health hazard for
Dundee neighborhood residents. Samples are appropriate for
long term assessment and peak exposures are less of a concern.
- Airborne metals including chromium do not present a health
hazard for Dundee neighborhood residents. Samples are appropriate
for long term assessment and peak exposures are less of a concern.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider short term sampling for naphthalene and phenol in
the Dundee neighborhood to evaluate peak exposures.
PREPARERS OF REPORT
Frank Schnell, Ph.D, DABT
Senior Toxicologist
Exposure Investigations and Consultation Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Reviewed by
Gregory M. Zarus
Atmospheric Scientist
Exposure Investigations and Consultation Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Sue Casteel
Region VII Representative
Office of Regional Operations
Shawn Blackshear
Region VII Representative
Office of Regional Operations
REFERENCES
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists;
1998, location Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure
Indices.
- IRIS
- ATSDR's Tox Profiles for chromium, naphthalene, and phenol.
- U.S. E.P.A. (1986). Guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment.
Fed. Reg., 51: 33992-34006, September 24, pg. 33997-8.
APPENDIX: ANALYTICAL DATA
Click here to view this appendix in
PDF format (PDF, 5.9MB)
This article originally appeared in the February,
2002, issue of the Misouri Valley Sierran (vol. 29, no. ?, p. 1)