Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Risk Assessment United Creosoting Site TX Anuradha Desai, Alex Figaro, Wei-Chun Lin ExposureAssessment ToxicityAssessmentRiskCharacterization HazardIdentification.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Risk Assessment United Creosoting Site TX Anuradha Desai, Alex Figaro, Wei-Chun Lin ExposureAssessment ToxicityAssessmentRiskCharacterization HazardIdentification."— Presentation transcript:

1 Risk Assessment United Creosoting Site TX Anuradha Desai, Alex Figaro, Wei-Chun Lin ExposureAssessment ToxicityAssessmentRiskCharacterization HazardIdentification

2 Outline Overview Overview Problem at the site Problem at the site objectives of Risk Assessment objectives of Risk Assessment Site Background Site Background Identification of COCs Identification of COCs Exposure Assessment Exposure Assessment Toxicity Assessment Toxicity Assessment Risk Characterization Risk Characterization

3 Site Background United Creosoting Site Size 100 acres Size 100 acres Located at Conroe, Texas Located at Conroe, Texas Operated a wood preserving facility at the site Operated a wood preserving facility at the site

4 Site Description 13000 people live within 2 miles of the site. 13000 people live within 2 miles of the site. Land use pattern Land use pattern Distribution company Distribution company Sisco Construction company Sisco Construction company Tangle wood east subdivision – residential area, supports about 225 residents. Tangle wood east subdivision – residential area, supports about 225 residents. Site holds two waste lagoons which are now filled Site holds two waste lagoons which are now filled 35,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil in the two filled waste lagoons and in the residential area. 43,000,000 gallons of contaminated ground water

5 United Creosoting Site

6 Site history 1946-1972 Operated as a wood treatment facility 1946-1972 Operated as a wood treatment facility 1972 Facility was closed and was redeveloped for 1972 Facility was closed and was redeveloped for light industrial use and a residential area was light industrial use and a residential area was built adjacent to it. built adjacent to it. 1980 County excavated soil from the site to use as a 1980 County excavated soil from the site to use as a fill along roads in the area. Subsequent fill along roads in the area. Subsequent investigation revealed contamination at the site investigation revealed contamination at the site 1983 EPA proposed the site for NPL 1983 EPA proposed the site for NPL 1984 Remedial investigation begun 1984 Remedial investigation begun

7 Site History Contd….. 1986 EPA issued a record of decision for temporary 1986 EPA issued a record of decision for temporary remedy. remedy. 1989 EPA issued a second record of decision for 1989 EPA issued a second record of decision for removing the contaminants from the soil. removing the contaminants from the soil. 1990 Remedial action began on residential properties 1990 Remedial action began on residential properties 1993 Remediation of residential properties was 1993 Remediation of residential properties was complete complete 1994 Remedial action began on industrial property 1994 Remedial action began on industrial property 1999 Remedial action was completed 1999 Remedial action was completed

8 Site contaminants and operations Principal pollutants Principal pollutants Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Chlorinated Dioxins (CDDs) Chlorinated Dioxins (CDDs) Chlorinated furans (CDFs) Chlorinated furans (CDFs) Site Operations Site Operations Treatment of wood under pressure with preservative chemicals like PCP and creosote.

9 Identification of chemicals of concern Sampling locations Sampling locations Tanglewood east division (Residential) Tanglewood east division (Residential) Industrial area of the site Industrial area of the site Sampling Media Sampling Media Soil (surface and subsurface) Soil (surface and subsurface) Sediments Sediments Groundwater Groundwater Biota Biota Air Air Criteria for screening Criteria for screening Toxicity Toxicity Concentrations in the media Concentrations in the media Pathway Pathway Fate and transport characteristics Fate and transport characteristics

10 Chemicals of concern Non Carcinogens Non Carcinogens Acenaphthene Acenaphthene Pentachlorophenol(PCP) Pentachlorophenol(PCP) Dibenzofuran Dibenzofuran Pyrene Pyrene Naphthalene Naphthalene Carcinogens Carcinogens Benzo-a-pyrene Benzo-a-pyrene Benzo-a-anthracene Benzo-a-anthracene Chrysene Chrysene HxCDD HxCDD HxCDF HxCDF HpCDD HpCDD HpCDF HpCDF PeCDD PeCDD OCDF OCDF OCDD OCDD

11 Exposure Assessment Characterization of exposure setting Characterization of exposure setting Nearest drinking water well is 1.8 miles southeast of the site Nearest drinking water well is 1.8 miles southeast of the site Shallow water bearing zone is 25 feet deep and is not used at present Shallow water bearing zone is 25 feet deep and is not used at present Water bearing used for supply is 100 feet deep Water bearing used for supply is 100 feet deep Potentially exposed population Potentially exposed population Residents (Tanglewood east division) Residents (Tanglewood east division) Onsite workers Onsite workers Workers involved in remediation Workers involved in remediation

12 Pathway Analyses Source United Creosoting facility Media Surface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Sediment Sediment Transport in the media Contamination through waste lagoons Exposure point Tanglewood east division Industrial area around the site Route Dermal Dermal Ingestion Ingestion Dermal Dermal Ingestion Ingestion Potential Receptors Residents Onsite workers Remedial workers

13 Exposure Quantification Residential Area (surface soil) Chemicals of Concern Concentration 1990 Mg/Kg Concentration 1985 Mg/Kg RBC Mg/Kg/day Acenaphthene0.6726003.70E+03 Pentachlorophenol (PCP)371501.50E+02 Pyrene16028003 Naphthalene0.076ND2.30E+03 Benzo(a)anthracene3520001.20E+02 Benzo(a)pyrene726506.20E-01 Chrysene9720006.20E-02 PeCDD 0.0040.00736.20E+01 HxCDD 0.2030.0076NA HpCDD 10.72NA OCDD2.86NA HxCDF0.0530.14NA HpCDF 0.1370.89NA OCDF 0.421.5NA

14 Exposure Quantification Industrial area (Subsurface soil) Chemicals of Concern Concentration (1990) Mg/Kg Concentration (1985) Mg/KgRBC Mg/Kg/day Acenaphthene2208603.30E+04 Dibenzofuran1909301.70E+03 Pentachlorophenol (PCP)9611001.00E+01 Pyrene62016003.20E+04 Naphthalene6712002.10E+02 Benzo(a)anthracene341802.3 Benzo(a)pyrene1350.23 Chrysene351302.30E+02 PeCDD ND0.021NA HxCDD 0.0030.007NA HpCDD 0.0720.41NA OCDD0.3830.24NA HxCDF0.0050.018NA HpCDF 0.0460.037NA OCDF 0.0660.012NA

15 Groundwater – (Onsite & vicinity of the residential area) Chemicals of Concern Concentration 1985 Mg/L GW Stds Mg/L Acenaphthene4903.70E-02 Pentachlorophenol (PCP)0.225.00E-02 Dibenzofuran4101.00E-02 Pyrene4501.80E-02 Naphthalene1,2003.30E-01 Benzo(a)anthraceneND1.00E-02 Benzo(a)pyreneND1.00E-02 ChryseneND1.00E-02 PeCDD 1.80E-06NA HxCDD 2.90E-06NA HpCDD 6.60E-05NA OCDD4.80E-04NA HxCDFNDNA HpCDF NDNA OCDF NDNA

16 Exposure Assessment Contd…. Exposure pathways evaluated Exposure pathways evaluated Ingestion of soil Ingestion of soil Dermal exposure to soil Dermal exposure to soil Ingestion of sediments Ingestion of sediments Dermal exposure to sediments Dermal exposure to sediments Ingestion of groundwater Ingestion of groundwater Pathways eliminated Pathways eliminated Inhalation Inhalation Ingestion of biota Ingestion of biota

17 Toxicity Assessment Non Carcinogens Non Carcinogens PCP PCP Detrimental effects on the liver, kidney, lungs, nervous system, immune system and GI tract. Detrimental effects on the liver, kidney, lungs, nervous system, immune system and GI tract. Pyrene Pyrene Attacks the kidney and liver Attacks the kidney and liver Acenaphthene Acenaphthene causes irritation to the skin and mucous membrane causes irritation to the skin and mucous membrane Dibenzofuran Dibenzofuran Causes rashes, irritation to the skin, nose & throat Causes rashes, irritation to the skin, nose & throat Naphthalene Naphthalene Hemolytic anemia. Reduction in the appetite of children Hemolytic anemia. Reduction in the appetite of children

18 Toxicity Assessment Contd… Carcinogens Carcinogens Benzo-a-Pyrene (Class A carcinogen) Benzo-a-Pyrene (Class A carcinogen) Associated with dermatotoxicity. Damage to Associated with dermatotoxicity. Damage to reproductive system. reproductive system. Benzo-a-anthracene / Chrysene (Class 2 carcinogen) Benzo-a-anthracene / Chrysene (Class 2 carcinogen) Target organs include liver, kidney and fat. Target organs include liver, kidney and fat. Chlorinated Dioxins Chlorinated Dioxins Anticipated to increase the cancer risk at Anticipated to increase the cancer risk at background levels of exposure. At higher levels they can cause serious skin diseases. background levels of exposure. At higher levels they can cause serious skin diseases.

19 Risk Characterization SmartRisk software was used to evaluate the cancer and the non cancer risk from the chosen exposure routes. SmartRisk software was used to evaluate the cancer and the non cancer risk from the chosen exposure routes. Input to the SmartRisk Input to the SmartRisk Concentrations of the COCs Concentrations of the COCs Slope factors and RfDs (For carcinonogens and non – carcinogens Respectively) Slope factors and RfDs (For carcinonogens and non – carcinogens Respectively) Assumptions Assumptions Use of TEFs for the compounds for which slope factors/RfDs were not available primarily the Dioxins and Furans. Use of TEFs for the compounds for which slope factors/RfDs were not available primarily the Dioxins and Furans. Groundwater ingestion – The fraction ingested was assumed to be 1 in 1000 of a litre. Groundwater ingestion – The fraction ingested was assumed to be 1 in 1000 of a litre.

20 Risk Characterization Contd…. Results Cancer and non cancer risk (1985) Exposure pathwayScenarioAdultChild Cancer Non CancerCancer Non cancer Soil IngestionIndustrial9.15E-041.64E-01 Residential8.04E-031.94E-011.50E-021.81E+00 Dermal exposure to soilIndustrial3.07E-042.82E-02 Residential3.03E-033.90E-023.80E-032.45E-01 Sediments IngestionIndustrial2.52E-042.57E-03 Dermal exposure to sedimentsIndustrial1.85E-041.03E-03 Groundwater IngestionIndustrial1.31E-101.81E-04

21 Results Cancer and non cancer risk: Sampling year 1990 Exposure pathwayScenarioAdultChild CancerNon CancerCancerNon cancer Soil IngestionIndustrial7.77E-053.67E-02 Residential4.00E-039.00E-037.54E-038.42E-02 Dermal exposure to soilIndustrial6.40E-056.04E-03 Residential2.96E-032.61E-033.72E-031.64E-02

22 Cancer Risk Industrial scenario Industrial scenario Adult – Soil Ingestion pathway -9.15e-4

23 Non cancer Risk Industrial Scenario Industrial Scenario Adult – Soil Ingestion pathway – 1.64e-1 Adult – Soil Ingestion pathway – 1.64e-1

24 Cancer Risk Residential Scenario Residential Scenario Adult – Soil Ingestion – 8.04e-3 Adult – Soil Ingestion – 8.04e-3

25 Cancer Risk Residential scenario Residential scenario Child – Soil Ingestion – 1.5e-2 Child – Soil Ingestion – 1.5e-2

26 Cancer Risk Residential Residential Adult – Dermal exposure to soil – 3.03e-3 Adult – Dermal exposure to soil – 3.03e-3

27 Cancer Risk Residential Residential Child Dermal Exposure to soil – 3.83e-3 Child Dermal Exposure to soil – 3.83e-3

28 Cancer Risk Industrial Industrial Adult – Dermal exposure to sediments – 1.85e-4 Adult – Dermal exposure to sediments – 1.85e-4

29 Cancer risk Industrial Industrial Adult – Soil Ingestion (1990) - 7.77e-5 Adult – Soil Ingestion (1990) - 7.77e-5

30 Comparison of cancer risk for 1985 & 1990 Adult

31 Comparison of cancer risk for child for 1985 & 1990

32 Non cancer risk summary FemalesFemales HICoC PathwayScenarioAdultChildAdultChild Soil IngestionIndustrial1.64E-01 No Residential1.94E-011.81E+00NoYes Dermal exposure to soilIndustrial2.82E-02 No Residential3.90E-022.45E-01No Sediments IngestionIndustrial2.57E-03 No Dermal exposure to sediments Industrial1.03E-03 No Groundwater IngestionIndustrial1.81E-04 No

33 Mortality rates observed during the year 1981-89

34 Conclusions Ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soil and sediments are potential exposure pathways for industrial workers as well as residents of Tanglewood east subdivision. Ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soil and sediments are potential exposure pathways for industrial workers as well as residents of Tanglewood east subdivision. Ground water ingestion is not a pathway of concern. Ground water ingestion is not a pathway of concern. The non cancer risk is greatest for children for The non cancer risk is greatest for children for the soil ingestion pathway. the soil ingestion pathway. The cancer risk in the year 1990 for the The cancer risk in the year 1990 for the industrial workers has reduced considerably to what was industrial workers has reduced considerably to what was in the year 1985. in the year 1985. However residents are still a potential receptor population for exposure to contaminated soil and sediment. However residents are still a potential receptor population for exposure to contaminated soil and sediment. The site posed a public health hazard in 1985. The site posed a public health hazard in 1985. However as of 1999 the site has been remediated and therefore may not pose a public health hazard at present. However as of 1999 the site has been remediated and therefore may not pose a public health hazard at present.

35 References http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd- o/midlo.htm http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd- o/midlo.htm http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/ucc/ucc_toc.h tml http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/ucc/ucc_toc.h tml http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/cgibin/tox/TOX_select?sele ct=csf http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/cgibin/tox/TOX_select?sele ct=csf http://www.epa.gov/iris/


Download ppt "Risk Assessment United Creosoting Site TX Anuradha Desai, Alex Figaro, Wei-Chun Lin ExposureAssessment ToxicityAssessmentRiskCharacterization HazardIdentification."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google