Download Safety Light Corporation PDF

TitleSafety Light Corporation
LanguageEnglish
File Size2.5 MB
Total Pages88
Table of Contents
                            ATSDR Conclusions and Recommendations
Site Summary
Purpose and Health Issues
Background
	Site-related landmarks and structures
		Canals lagoons, and Dump Areas
		Other Site activities
	Emergency Removal Activities – Silo and Waste Processing Area
		Previous Groundwater Investigations
Pathway Analyses
	Assessing Health Effects
Analysis of Radiologic Samples
	Determination of Background Radiation
	Off-site groundwater
	Off-site soil sampling for radionuclides
	On-site soil sampling for radionuclides
	Atmospheric levels of radionuclides
		Evaluation of atmospheric concentrations of radioactive materials
Analysis of Radioactivity in Drinking Water Samples
Analysis of Chemical (Non-Radioactive) Drinking Water Samples
	Non-Cancer Health Effects Evaluation
Minimal Risk Levels (MRL)
References Doses (RfD)
	Cancer Risk
		Arsenic
		Copper
		Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Community Health Concerns
	Radiological contaminants of concern
		Strontium 90
		Radium
		Radon
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Safety Light Site
Public Health Action Plan for the Safety Light Corporation Site
Authors, Technical Advisors
ATSDR Glossary of Environmental Health Terms
	National Library of Medicine (NIH) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dictionaries.html
References
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

SAFETY LIGHT CORPORATION


BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

EPA FACILITY ID: PAD987295276


DECEMBER 4, 2009

Page 2

THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION

This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations
(42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health
concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and
potentially responsible parties, where appropriate.

In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA
section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period.
Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate.
The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional
information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously
issued.

Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry .................................................... .Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., Administrator
Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director

Division of Health Assessment and Consultation…. ..................................................................... William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director
Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Deputy Director

Health Promotion and Community Involvement Branch………………………………………..Hilda Shepeard, Ph.D., M.B.A., Chief

Exposure Investigations and Consultation Branch.................................................................................... Susan M. Moore, M.S., Chief

Site and Radiological Assessment Branch ................................................................................................ Sandra G. Isaacs, B.S., Chief

Cooperative Agreement and Program Evaluation Branch ................................................................... Richard E. Gillig, M.C.P., Chief

Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.

Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia

(703) 605-6000

You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at
1-800-CDC-INFO

or
Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov

http:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov

Page 44

The available human and animal studies indicate that arsenic has been associated with several
different types of cancers including skin, liver, bladder, kidney, and lungs. Therefore, ATSDR
evaluated the cancer risk associated with these exposures. The risk of developing cancer from
exposure to arsenic in drinking water during childhood and adulthood has been combined and is
referred to as a lifetime cancer risk. ATSDR’s calculated theoretical cancer risk and cancer
assessment for arsenic in Wells A through G are presented in Table 11. In summary, the
estimated cancer risk for arsenic in private wells near SLC was considered to be very low.
Therefore, cancerous effects from exposure are very unlikely to occur.

Table 11. Cancer Evaluation for Arsenic in Private Drinking Water

Residential Well Location Increased Cancer Risk
Estimate (a)

Cancer Risk Conclusion

Well A 5 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.995%
chance of not getting cancer

Well B 6 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.994%
chance of not getting cancer

Well C 6 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.994%
chance of not getting cancer

Well D 7 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.993%
chance of not getting cancer

Well E 10 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.99%
chance of not getting chance

Well F 7 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.993%
chance of not getting cancer

Well G 10 cases per 100,000 people
exposed

Very low risk: 99.99%
chance of not getting chance

(a) Arsenic cancer risk was assessed by using USEPA’s cancer slope factor of 1.5 (mg/kg/day)-1 per the USEPA
IRIS database accessed on-line at http://www.epa.gov/iris.

Arsenic in Drinking Water Conclusion: Based on ATSDR’s evaluation, cancer and non-
cancer health effects are not expected to result from arsenic in private drinking water wells
in the vicinity of the Safety Light Site. No further assessment of arsenic is necessary.

40

http://www.epa.gov/iris�

Page 45

Copper

General Copper Information: Copper is a reddish metal that occurs naturally in rock, soil, water,
and sediment. Copper also occurs naturally in all plants and animals. It is an essential element for
all known living organisms including humans and animals at low levels of intake. Metallic
copper can be easily molded or shaped. The reddish color of this element is most commonly seen
in the U.S. penny, electrical wiring, and some water pipes. Homes with copper piping and an
acidic water supply may result in the presence of copper in drinking water. It has been found that
copper in piping can be minimized by allowing the water to run for 15-30 seconds before using
for the water for drinking and cooking. Copper is also found in many mixtures of metals, called
alloys, such as brass and bronze. Copper is extensively mined and processed in the U.S. and is
used in the manufacture of wire, sheet metal, pipe, and other metal products. Copper compounds
are most commonly used in agriculture to treat plant diseases, like mildew, or for water
treatment, as well as preservatives for wood, leather, and fabrics (14 ).

Copper Health Effects: All humans must absorb small amounts of copper every day because
copper is essential for good health. High levels of copper can be harmful. Ingestion of high levels
of copper can cause nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, and diarrhea. Exposure to very high
doses of copper can cause damage to the liver and kidneys. Copper has not been found to cause
cancer in humans. However, the available scientific literature on copper and cancer is very
limited and no adequate human or animal cancer studies are available.

Copper in Private Wells adjacent to SLC: Copper was detected in three of the seven private
wells sampled. The maximum detected concentrations of copper in all seven wells, ranging from
129 μg/L to 304 μg/L, were found to exceed the health-based comparison values selected by
ATSDR. The selected comparison value of 100 μg/L is ATSDR’s Intermediate Environmental
Media Evaluation Guide (EMEG). The Intermediate EMEG is derived from exposures of 15 to
365 days. Although residents may have been exposed for more than one year, a chronic EMEG
for copper has not been derived. Therefore, the intermediate copper EMEG was selected by
ATSDR. Copper concentrations that are present in drinking water above the selected EMEG
does not indicate that health effects will occur to those exposed. Rather, it indicates that ATSDR
scientists must take a closer look, as part of this public health assessment, at the data and the
levels of copper found in the wells in the vicinity of SLC.

Additional government guidelines are available for copper in drinking water. The USEPA Office
of Drinking Water has set a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for copper in drinking
water of 1,300 μg/L (12). The World Health Organization also recommends a drinking water
guideline of 2,000 ug/L. It should be noted that none of the samples collected from the seven
wells (ranging from 129 μg/L to 304 μg/L) contained copper that exceeded either the USEPA
MCLG or the World Health Organization provisional drinking water guideline (13).

ATSDR calculated exposure doses for copper detected in private wells. Because copper does not
readily volatilize (or become airborne) during showering and bathing, and is not easily absorbed
by the skin, only exposures from ingesting the water have been calculated. Adult and children
exposure doses for copper and a summary of the non-cancer health effects evaluation conducted
by ATSDR for wells A, C, and D in the vicinity of SLC are presented in Table 12. Copper was
not detected above health-based comparison values in wells B,E,F, and G.

41

Page 87

15. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Di(2­
ethylhexyl)phthalate. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services.
September 2002. Available on-line at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp9.html.

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Involvement Plan for the Safety Light
Corporation Superfund Site. November 2005. Available on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/super/sites/PAD987295276/index.htm.

17. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. and National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements. Scientific Committee 57-12. (1991). Some aspects of
strontium radiobiology. Bethesda, MD, National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements

18. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Strontium.
Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. April 2004. Available on-line
at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp159.html.

19. World Health Organization, Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-
Frequency ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risks to humans, ed. I.A.f.R.o. Cancer. Vol. 80. 2002, Lyon, France: IARC
Press. 429.

20. Mould, R. (2007). Priority for radium therapy of benign conditions and cancer. Current
Oncology, 14:118-122.

21. National Research Council (1988). Health Risks of Radon and other internally deposited
alpha emitters. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

22. Rowland, R., Radium in Humans. A review of US studies. 1994, Argonne National
Laboratory: Argonne, Illinois. p. 246.

23. Stebbings, J., H. Lucas, and A. Stehney (1984). Mortality from cancers of major sites in
female radium dial workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 5:435-459.

24. Rundo, J., et al. (1985). Current (1984) Status of the Study of 226Ra and 228Ra in Humans at
the Center for Human Radiobiology. Strahlentherapie [Sonderb]. 80:14-21.

25. Evans, RD(1974). Radium in man. Health Physics 74:497-510.

26. Finch, S. (2007). "Radiation-induced leukemia: Lessons from history." Best Practice &
Research Clinical Haematology 20(1): 109-118

27. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. (1984). Exposures from the
uranium series with emphasis on radon and its daughters : recommendations of the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report 77. Bethesda, MD, NCRP.

28. ICRP (2002). ICRP Database of Dose Coefficients: Workers and Members of the Public.
International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP.

29. National Research Council (1991). Comparative dosimetry of Radon in mines and homes.
Washington, DC: National Research Council. 244 pp.

78

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp9.html�
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/super/sites/PAD987295276/index.htm�
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp159.html�

Page 88

30. Field RW, Steck DJ, Lynch CF, Brus CP, Neuberger JS, Kross BC. Residential Radon-222
Exposure and Lung Cancer: Exposure Assessment Methodology. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 6(2):181-195, 1996.

31. La Garde, F, Falk R, Almrén K, Nyberg F, Svensson H, Pershagen G. Glass-based radon-
exposure assessment and lung cancer risk. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology (2002) 12, 344–354.

32. World Health Organization, Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Some internally deposited
radionuclides. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, ed.
I.A.f.R.o. Cancer. Vol.78. 2001, Lyon, France: IARC Press. 595.

79

Similer Documents