Lutes, C., J. Lowe and L. Lund Comparing Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Approaches to Statistically Evaluating Indoor Air Data: Vapor Intrusion Applications Oral presentation A&WMA’s 110th Annual Conference and Exposition; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania June 5-8, 2017
Ruth Hull, Senior Scientist, Intrinsik Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, spoke at sustainability, chemical life cycle assessment and the work of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's Chemicals Management Forum on May 16, 2012 in San Antonio, Texas. More information at: http://www.cec.org/chemicals2012
Combined Use of AERMOD, ArcGIS, and Risk Analyst for Human Health Risk Assess...BREEZE Software
This presentation provides an overview of methodology using a combination of AERMOD, ArcGIS, and Risk Analyst developed to simplify the Human Health Risk Assessment analysis.
Top Workplace Safety News for May/June 2019:
- CCOHS names least-safe companies in U.S.
- Free resources for National Safety Month
- Legal marijuana and workplace safety
- What's New at ComplianceSigns: Larger images and easier custom signs
- More
Ruth Hull, Senior Scientist, Intrinsik Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, spoke at sustainability, chemical life cycle assessment and the work of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's Chemicals Management Forum on May 16, 2012 in San Antonio, Texas. More information at: http://www.cec.org/chemicals2012
Combined Use of AERMOD, ArcGIS, and Risk Analyst for Human Health Risk Assess...BREEZE Software
This presentation provides an overview of methodology using a combination of AERMOD, ArcGIS, and Risk Analyst developed to simplify the Human Health Risk Assessment analysis.
Top Workplace Safety News for May/June 2019:
- CCOHS names least-safe companies in U.S.
- Free resources for National Safety Month
- Legal marijuana and workplace safety
- What's New at ComplianceSigns: Larger images and easier custom signs
- More
The TCE Revolution and Its Permanent Impact on Environmental Due DiligenceEDR
EDR INSIGHT WEBINAR: THE TCE REVOLUTION AND ITS PERMANENT IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE
June 24, 2015
Presented by:
-David Gillay, Partner and Chair of Brownfields & Environmental Transactional Diligence Practice Areas, Barnes & Thornburg LLP
-Dr. Michael Dourson, Ph.D., Alliance for Risk Assessment
Following decades of studies, scrutiny and debate, the U.S. EPA updated its TCE’s toxicity profile in the IRIS database, dramatically lowering the toxicity value. For transactional due diligence, this more stringent limit has important implications, including markedly more extensive and expensive cleanup processes. Given the focus on vapor migration in the new ASTM Phase I ESA standard, environmental professionals need to be increasingly cautious when making REC determinations and recommendations to clients.
Adding to the confusion is the significant variability in how regulators are using the updated TCE toxicity profile when making closure decisions at contaminated properties. For instance, U.S. EPA Regions 9, 10 and states like Minnesota, Indiana and Massachusetts (among others) have implemented profoundly different approaches to address TCE risk at contaminated sites. Thus, it is critical for environmental professionals to stay abreast of the how TCE guidance is being interpreted and applied across the country. In the latest development, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry is proposing a dramatic change to its TCE toxicity profile for the first time in 18 years. The comment period ended on March 16, 2015, and if the update is finalized in its current form, there will be more intense scrutiny on exposure risks which will further complicate transactional due diligence.
This timely webinar will bring together an attorney and a national subject matter expert to address the various impacts of TCE’s toxicity update on transactional due diligence. This panel will help EPs answer the following questions:
-Does TCE in groundwater constitute a VEC and/or a REC?
-How should an EP manage variability in TCE standards in multi-state transactions?
-How can an EP take steps to minimize exposure to potential liability?
-How can an EP make sense of the science and available guidance?
-How should an EP communicate potential risks associated with TCE to clients?
This is a presentation on translating environmental risk assessment outputs to socioeconomic impact inputs under REACH that I gave in March 2010 to the Socieconomic Analysis Committee of the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki.
To cater a green environment of manufacturing industries, reponsible persons or designee, higher management, owners should go through it and implement as required as their scope for safety, health, profitable business to global customer response.
ndicators, Tracers and Surrogates - Why Use Them, Probability Analysis, Defin...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., C. Holton, J, Kurtz and R. Truesdale “Indicators, Tracers and Surrogates - Why Use Them, Probability Analysis, Definitions and Examples” presented at EPA/AEHS, 21 March 2017 - Workshop: Finding Practical Solutions for the Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion, San Diego.
Occupational exposure limits (OEL) to chemical agents APIs - Quantitative Ris...Azierta
The Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) is defined as the airborne concentration of a substance (expressed as a weighted average in time for a working day of 8 hours/day and 40 hours/working week) under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed (day after day, over a working lifetime) without adverse health effects (ACGIH, 2006; DFG, 2005).
Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are a useful tool to prevent adverse effects on health when managing chemical substances.
On a European scale…
• Employers are legally obliged to provide a work environment that does not threaten the health of the workers (Chemical Agent Directive 98/24/EC and Framework Directive 89/391/EEC).
• Under Directive 89/391/EEC, OELs can be developed nationally, Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values (IOELVs).
Alan Krupnick (Resources for the Future)'s keynote presentation to the OECD workshop on the socioeconomic impact assessment of chemicals management. Helsinki, 6 July 2016.
GHME 2013 Conference
Session: New directions in cost-effectiveness analysis
Date: June 18 2013
Presenter: Josh Salomon
Institute:
Harvard School of Public Health
Presentation from Andreas Hermann, Oeko-Institut, about specific project activity on the risk management measures for nanomaterials, on the "Strategic workshop on nanotechnology" in Brussels,
10th February 2015.
Are Industrial Buildings Different? Implication of a Quantitative Vapor Intr...Chris Lutes
Lutes C., K. Hallberg, J. Lowe, L Lund, M. Novak, P. Venable, T. Chaudhry, I. Rivera-Duarte and D. Caldwell Are Industrial Buildings Different? Implication of a Quantitative Vapor Intrusion at DoD Industrial Buildings Nationwide; Presented at Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies (Battelle Symposium); Miami Florida 2015
Passive Samplers for Vapor Intrusion Monitoring: Update of EPA’s Technical S...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., R. Truesdale, H. Hayes, T. McAlary, H. Dawson, B. Cosky , D. Grossee, B. Schumacher and J. Zimmerman Passive Samplers for Vapor Intrusion Monitoring: Update of EPA’s Technical Support Document and Research Results, Presented at Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies (Battelle Symposium); Miami Florida 2015
More Related Content
Similar to Comparing Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Approaches to Statistically Evaluating Indoor Air Data: Vapor Intrusion Applications
The TCE Revolution and Its Permanent Impact on Environmental Due DiligenceEDR
EDR INSIGHT WEBINAR: THE TCE REVOLUTION AND ITS PERMANENT IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE
June 24, 2015
Presented by:
-David Gillay, Partner and Chair of Brownfields & Environmental Transactional Diligence Practice Areas, Barnes & Thornburg LLP
-Dr. Michael Dourson, Ph.D., Alliance for Risk Assessment
Following decades of studies, scrutiny and debate, the U.S. EPA updated its TCE’s toxicity profile in the IRIS database, dramatically lowering the toxicity value. For transactional due diligence, this more stringent limit has important implications, including markedly more extensive and expensive cleanup processes. Given the focus on vapor migration in the new ASTM Phase I ESA standard, environmental professionals need to be increasingly cautious when making REC determinations and recommendations to clients.
Adding to the confusion is the significant variability in how regulators are using the updated TCE toxicity profile when making closure decisions at contaminated properties. For instance, U.S. EPA Regions 9, 10 and states like Minnesota, Indiana and Massachusetts (among others) have implemented profoundly different approaches to address TCE risk at contaminated sites. Thus, it is critical for environmental professionals to stay abreast of the how TCE guidance is being interpreted and applied across the country. In the latest development, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry is proposing a dramatic change to its TCE toxicity profile for the first time in 18 years. The comment period ended on March 16, 2015, and if the update is finalized in its current form, there will be more intense scrutiny on exposure risks which will further complicate transactional due diligence.
This timely webinar will bring together an attorney and a national subject matter expert to address the various impacts of TCE’s toxicity update on transactional due diligence. This panel will help EPs answer the following questions:
-Does TCE in groundwater constitute a VEC and/or a REC?
-How should an EP manage variability in TCE standards in multi-state transactions?
-How can an EP take steps to minimize exposure to potential liability?
-How can an EP make sense of the science and available guidance?
-How should an EP communicate potential risks associated with TCE to clients?
This is a presentation on translating environmental risk assessment outputs to socioeconomic impact inputs under REACH that I gave in March 2010 to the Socieconomic Analysis Committee of the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki.
To cater a green environment of manufacturing industries, reponsible persons or designee, higher management, owners should go through it and implement as required as their scope for safety, health, profitable business to global customer response.
ndicators, Tracers and Surrogates - Why Use Them, Probability Analysis, Defin...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., C. Holton, J, Kurtz and R. Truesdale “Indicators, Tracers and Surrogates - Why Use Them, Probability Analysis, Definitions and Examples” presented at EPA/AEHS, 21 March 2017 - Workshop: Finding Practical Solutions for the Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion, San Diego.
Occupational exposure limits (OEL) to chemical agents APIs - Quantitative Ris...Azierta
The Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) is defined as the airborne concentration of a substance (expressed as a weighted average in time for a working day of 8 hours/day and 40 hours/working week) under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed (day after day, over a working lifetime) without adverse health effects (ACGIH, 2006; DFG, 2005).
Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are a useful tool to prevent adverse effects on health when managing chemical substances.
On a European scale…
• Employers are legally obliged to provide a work environment that does not threaten the health of the workers (Chemical Agent Directive 98/24/EC and Framework Directive 89/391/EEC).
• Under Directive 89/391/EEC, OELs can be developed nationally, Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values (IOELVs).
Alan Krupnick (Resources for the Future)'s keynote presentation to the OECD workshop on the socioeconomic impact assessment of chemicals management. Helsinki, 6 July 2016.
GHME 2013 Conference
Session: New directions in cost-effectiveness analysis
Date: June 18 2013
Presenter: Josh Salomon
Institute:
Harvard School of Public Health
Presentation from Andreas Hermann, Oeko-Institut, about specific project activity on the risk management measures for nanomaterials, on the "Strategic workshop on nanotechnology" in Brussels,
10th February 2015.
Are Industrial Buildings Different? Implication of a Quantitative Vapor Intr...Chris Lutes
Lutes C., K. Hallberg, J. Lowe, L Lund, M. Novak, P. Venable, T. Chaudhry, I. Rivera-Duarte and D. Caldwell Are Industrial Buildings Different? Implication of a Quantitative Vapor Intrusion at DoD Industrial Buildings Nationwide; Presented at Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies (Battelle Symposium); Miami Florida 2015
Passive Samplers for Vapor Intrusion Monitoring: Update of EPA’s Technical S...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., R. Truesdale, H. Hayes, T. McAlary, H. Dawson, B. Cosky , D. Grossee, B. Schumacher and J. Zimmerman Passive Samplers for Vapor Intrusion Monitoring: Update of EPA’s Technical Support Document and Research Results, Presented at Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies (Battelle Symposium); Miami Florida 2015
Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Strategies at UST and non-UST Sites Under 2015 EPA ...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., L. Lund, J. Lowe and K. Hallberg “Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Strategies at UST and non-UST Sites Under 2015 EPA and 2014 ITRC Guides” Oral presentation at the 26th Annual International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy and Air, March 2016, San Diego.
Passive Fence Line Monitoring for Benzene. Coming Soon to Refineries. Who’s...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., G. Lipinski and S. Engleman “Passive Fence Line Monitoring for Benzene. Coming Soon to Refineries.
Who’s next? The Logistical Challenges and Strategic Choices You May Need to Make” Presented at A&WMA’s 108th Annual Conference, Raleigh NC, 2015.
Implementation of 2015 EPA Vapor Intrusion (VI) Guides: Application in State ...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., L. Lund, C. Holton and M. Bedan “Implementation of 2015 EPA Vapor Intrusion (VI) Guides: Application in State Programs”; AEHS 26th Annual West Coast Conference, March 2016, San Diego.
Vapor Intrusion in an Age of FederalismChris Lutes
Lutes, C., J. Lowe and L. Lund “Vapor Intrusion (VI) Guidance in an Age of Federalism” Presented at Air and Waste Management Association’s 111th Annual Conference and Exposition; June 25 – 28, 2018 Hartford, CT
Lund Using Climate Zones, Architectural Knowledge, and Low-cost Indicators t...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C.C., C. Holton, E. Escobar, S. Steinmacher and L. Lund Using Climate Zones, Architectural Knowledge, and Low-cost Indicators to Build Efficient Vapor Intrusion (VI) Sampling Strategies; Presented at AWMA Annual Meeting June 2019, Quebec City, Canada.
Lutes, C. and J. Minchak “Non-residential Building Vapor Intrusion (VI) Lifecycle Cost – When Is Preemptive Mitigation a Good Value?” Poster presentation at Tenth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, May 2016, Palm Springs CA.
Million square foot building lutes aehs epa workshop ssda community leader-...Chris Lutes
Practical case study of design and operations of a subslab depressurization system in a large commercial building. Poster presented at AEHS 23rd International Conference, San Diego 2013
Lutes, C. MEW/Moffett Field Buildings 15 and 17 – A Review of Multiple Published Studies; Site in IECC Climate Zone 3C; Presented at US EPA Workshop on: Measurement-Based Methods for Protective & Defensible Chlorinated VI Exposure Determinations; AEHS East Coast Conference, October 22, 2019, Amherst MA.
Lutes C. Wheeler and SEND Buildings In Indianapolis – Radon and Differential Pressure Data in VOC Site Management Presented at US EPA Workshop on: Measurement-Based Methods for Protective & Defensible Chlorinated VI Exposure Determinations; AEHS East Coast Conference, October 22, 2019, Amherst MA.
Lutes, C.C. “Future Testing: Combining External Soil Gas Concentrations with Indoor ITS to Form a Partial Surrogate to Minimize Indoor Air Sampling” Presented at EPA Workshop on: Indicators, Tracers and Surrogates (ITS) for Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion (CVI) – Pursuing Additional Observations at AEHS East Coast Conference, October 16, 2018.
Lutes, C.C “Radon Methods for Vapor Intrusion Sites: What, Where, When, How, and Why” Presented at EPA Workshop on: Indicators, Tracers and Surrogates (ITS) for Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion (CVI) – Pursuing Additional Observations at AEHS East Coast Conference, October 16, 2018.
Lutes, C.C. “Temperature Methods for Vapor Intrusion Sites: What, Where, When, How, and Why “ Presented at EPA Workshop on: Indicators, Tracers and Surrogates (ITS) for Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion (CVI) – Pursuing Additional Observations at AEHS East Coast Conference, October 16, 2018.
07 lutes slides for epa 2018 workshop moisturev5Chris Lutes
Lutes, C. “Indicators, Tracers, and Surrogates of Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion – Potential for
Rain, Soil Moisture, Water Table, Snow and Ice” oral presentation at EPA Workshop at 28th Annual AEHS International West Coast Conference on Soils, Water, Energy and Air, March 20, 2018.
Aehs 03.2017 lutesindicators tracers and surrogates 9 including holton and ku...Chris Lutes
Lutes, C., C. Holton, J, Kurtz and R. Truesdale “Indicators, Tracers and Surrogates - Why Use Them, Probability Analysis, Definitions and Examples” presented at EPA/AEHS, 21 March 2017 - Workshop: Finding Practical Solutions for the Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion, San Diego.
Lutes, C. and R. Truesdale Panel Discussion Presentation “Vapor Intrusion at the USEPA Indianapolis Duplex: Exploring the Role of Conventional Vapor Migration versus a Sewer Preferential Pathway” Oral presentation at Tenth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, May 2016, Palm Springs CA.
Lutes, C. and J. Knoepfle “Rapid, Efficient Delineation From VI Potential of A Large Soil Gas Plume Using HAPSITE and Other Lines of Evidence” Invited oral presentation at EPA Vapor Intrusion Workshop at The 26th Annual International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy and Air, March 2016, San Diego. Presentation available for download from https://iavi.rti.org/WorkshopsAndConferences.cfm.
Lutes, C., B. Cosky, B. Schumacher, J. Zimmerman, R. Truesdale and R., Norberg “Four Winters of Continuous Vapor Intrusion Monitoring In Indianapolis –Temporal Variability in Indoor Air” Oral presentation at EPA Vapor Intrusion Workshop at the AEHS 23rd International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy and Air, March 2013, San Diego
Zimmerman, J., B. Schumacher, C. Lutes, B. Cosky, R. Truesdale and B. Schumacher “ORD VI-research duplex and Wheeler Building, Indianapolis- summary of evidence to date: temporal variability in long-term mitigation performance and before mitigation: What causes it?” Presented at AEHS/EPA 2015 workshop on Long-Term Evidence-Based Protection & Sustainability; in Residential, Commercial and Industrial Buildings; San Diego.
WRI’s brand new “Food Service Playbook for Promoting Sustainable Food Choices” gives food service operators the very latest strategies for creating dining environments that empower consumers to choose sustainable, plant-rich dishes. This research builds off our first guide for food service, now with industry experience and insights from nearly 350 academic trials.
Characterization and the Kinetics of drying at the drying oven and with micro...Open Access Research Paper
The objective of this work is to contribute to valorization de Nephelium lappaceum by the characterization of kinetics of drying of seeds of Nephelium lappaceum. The seeds were dehydrated until a constant mass respectively in a drying oven and a microwawe oven. The temperatures and the powers of drying are respectively: 50, 60 and 70°C and 140, 280 and 420 W. The results show that the curves of drying of seeds of Nephelium lappaceum do not present a phase of constant kinetics. The coefficients of diffusion vary between 2.09.10-8 to 2.98. 10-8m-2/s in the interval of 50°C at 70°C and between 4.83×10-07 at 9.04×10-07 m-8/s for the powers going of 140 W with 420 W the relation between Arrhenius and a value of energy of activation of 16.49 kJ. mol-1 expressed the effect of the temperature on effective diffusivity.
Willie Nelson Net Worth: A Journey Through Music, Movies, and Business Venturesgreendigital
Willie Nelson is a name that resonates within the world of music and entertainment. Known for his unique voice, and masterful guitar skills. and an extraordinary career spanning several decades. Nelson has become a legend in the country music scene. But, his influence extends far beyond the realm of music. with ventures in acting, writing, activism, and business. This comprehensive article delves into Willie Nelson net worth. exploring the various facets of his career that have contributed to his large fortune.
Follow us on: Pinterest
Introduction
Willie Nelson net worth is a testament to his enduring influence and success in many fields. Born on April 29, 1933, in Abbott, Texas. Nelson's journey from a humble beginning to becoming one of the most iconic figures in American music is nothing short of inspirational. His net worth, which estimated to be around $25 million as of 2024. reflects a career that is as diverse as it is prolific.
Early Life and Musical Beginnings
Humble Origins
Willie Hugh Nelson was born during the Great Depression. a time of significant economic hardship in the United States. Raised by his grandparents. Nelson found solace and inspiration in music from an early age. His grandmother taught him to play the guitar. setting the stage for what would become an illustrious career.
First Steps in Music
Nelson's initial foray into the music industry was fraught with challenges. He moved to Nashville, Tennessee, to pursue his dreams, but success did not come . Working as a songwriter, Nelson penned hits for other artists. which helped him gain a foothold in the competitive music scene. His songwriting skills contributed to his early earnings. laying the foundation for his net worth.
Rise to Stardom
Breakthrough Albums
The 1970s marked a turning point in Willie Nelson's career. His albums "Shotgun Willie" (1973), "Red Headed Stranger" (1975). and "Stardust" (1978) received critical acclaim and commercial success. These albums not only solidified his position in the country music genre. but also introduced his music to a broader audience. The success of these albums played a crucial role in boosting Willie Nelson net worth.
Iconic Songs
Willie Nelson net worth is also attributed to his extensive catalog of hit songs. Tracks like "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain," "On the Road Again," and "Always on My Mind" have become timeless classics. These songs have not only earned Nelson large royalties but have also ensured his continued relevance in the music industry.
Acting and Film Career
Hollywood Ventures
In addition to his music career, Willie Nelson has also made a mark in Hollywood. His distinctive personality and on-screen presence have landed him roles in several films and television shows. Notable appearances include roles in "The Electric Horseman" (1979), "Honeysuckle Rose" (1980), and "Barbarosa" (1982). These acting gigs have added a significant amount to Willie Nelson net worth.
Television Appearances
Nelson's char
Artificial Reefs by Kuddle Life Foundation - May 2024punit537210
Situated in Pondicherry, India, Kuddle Life Foundation is a charitable, non-profit and non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to improving the living standards of coastal communities and simultaneously placing a strong emphasis on the protection of marine ecosystems.
One of the key areas we work in is Artificial Reefs. This presentation captures our journey so far and our learnings. We hope you get as excited about marine conservation and artificial reefs as we are.
Please visit our website: https://kuddlelife.org
Our Instagram channel:
@kuddlelifefoundation
Our Linkedin Page:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/kuddlelifefoundation/
and write to us if you have any questions:
info@kuddlelife.org
Natural farming @ Dr. Siddhartha S. Jena.pptxsidjena70
A brief about organic farming/ Natural farming/ Zero budget natural farming/ Subash Palekar Natural farming which keeps us and environment safe and healthy. Next gen Agricultural practices of chemical free farming.
Comparing Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Approaches to Statistically Evaluating Indoor Air Data: Vapor Intrusion Applications
1. 1
Comparing Industrial Hygiene and Environmental
Approaches to Statistically Evaluating Indoor Air
Data: Vapor Intrusion Applications
Chris Lutes
CH2M, Raleigh, NC
John Lowe, CIH
CH2M, Spokane, WA
Dr. Loren Lund
CH2M, Shelley, ID
A&WMA’s 110th Annual Conference and Exposition
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 5-8, 2017
2. 2
Introduction
• Workers in vapor intrusion (VI)-impacted buildings can fall under
both occupational and environmental cleanup regulatory
requirements.
• Therefore, there can be multiple limits for assessing potential VI
exposures:
– Risk-based screening levels such as Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
(VISLs).
– Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) such as Permissible Exposure Limits
(PELs) or Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) – which are ACGIH guidelines
• There can be a large disparity between VISLs and OELs for some
chemicals.
• This can lead to confusing situations in risk management and risk
communication.
3. 3
WHAT IS VAPOR INTRUSION (VI)?
“… migration of hazardous vapors from the subsurface into … overlying buildings”
USEPA (2015)
4. 44
VI Regulatory Drivers/Policies (TCE Example)
EPA R9
CalEPA
HDOH
EPA R10
AK DEC
NJDEP
MADEP
NHDES
CT DPH/DEEPOhio EPA
IDEM
EPA R6
EPA R3
EPA R4
Values applied throughout the U.S.
EPA R7
EPA Region 7 (Nov, 2016): “The action level for an industrial/commercial scenario…..is
6 µg/m3. An exceedance of the TCE action level indicates a potential imminent threat….
Region 7 should expedite early or interim actions….as quickly as possible…immediate site
actions could include relocation, restricting the time….workers remain”
5. 55
The Problem in a Nutshell
Same molecule but different standards of protection
depending on how exposure occurs.
Exposure is
managed as
part of
environment
al cleanup.
EPA has
primacy.
Exposure is
managed as a
matter of
occupational
health.
OSHA has
primacy.
6. 6
Objectives
• Compare VISLs and OELs (in this case, TLVs) with several topics:
what kinds of populations are protected; how are carcinogens
assessed, as examples.
– Describe some differences in methods and ‘philosophies’ about
controlling toxic exposures used by different authorities.
• Compare the respective risk management frameworks for using
VISLs and OELs in decision-making and taking actions to control
exposures to VOCs in indoor air.
– Examples are presented for selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
which have been detected in indoor air at VI sites.
7. 77
How are carcinogenic substances
addressed?
Topic Environmental (VISL) Occupational (TLV)
How are cancer risk-
based levels
developed?
Extrapolated using
modeling from high-
dose animal studies
or highly-exposed
groups of humans.
Qualtitative - based
on weight-of-
evidence (WOE) for
human cancer.
What level of
protection is
achieved?
10
-6
to 10
-4
risk range;
cost and technical
feasibility not
considered.
Follows "ALARA"
approach. Other OELs
have used 10
-3
risk.
Cost and technical
feasibility considered
8. 88
How are non-carcinogenic
substances addressed?
Topic VISL TLV
How are non-cancer
risk-based levels
developed?
Extrapolated from
NOAEL, LOAEL or
BMD from animal
studies or exposed
human groups using
modeling.
Based on studies
identifying minimal
and no-adverse effect
levels. Emphasis on
inhalation exposures
ideally from human
experience.
What populations are
protected?
All individuals
including sensitive
subpopulations.
"Nearly all workers"
(adults and older
teens). May not
protect sensitive
individuals.
11. 1111
Screening Levels (SLs) and TLVs for Selected
VOCs Found at VI Sites
Analyte
Carcinogenic
SL
TR=1 x 10-6
(ug/m3
)
Carcinogenic
SL
TR=1 x 10-4
(ug/m3
)
Non-
carcinogenic
SL
THQ=1
(µg/m3
)
Non-
carcinogenic
SL
THQ=3
(µg/m3
)
TLV-TWA
(ug/m3
)
Benzene 1.6 160 130 390 1,600
Trichloroethylene 3 300 8.8 26.4 54,000
Notes:
SL = screening level.
TR = target cancer risk.
THQ = target hazard quotient
TLV-TWA = Threshold Limit Value based on 8-hour Time-Weighted Average.
The non-carcinogenic VISL, based on a THQ of 1.
The carcinogenic VISL, based on a 1 x 10-6
cancer risk, is shown along with the target risk
range (EPA, 1991).
14. 14
Harmonizing Risk Management Frameworks
• EPA has a growing role in managing chemical exposures to
workers:
– VI in commercial/industrial buildings next to or overlying hazardous waste
sites.
– TSCA rules under the reauthorization act (Lautenberg Act of 2016)
specifically defines workers as a “susceptible subpopulation”
• Challenges to the occupational health community:
– There will be disparities between limits for assessing occupational and
environmental exposures, for many chemicals
– The disparities in the numbers won’t be resolved soon
– Harmonize the risk management frameworks:
• Reduce operational disruptions (evacuations of VI-impacted buildings) and risk
communication problems.
15. 15
One Concept for Harmonization: Ranking VI Workplace
Risks a/
• Universe of Workplace Hazards
– Examples: Physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic, psychosocial,
mechanical, electrical.
a/ Using the ANSI Z-10 Occupational Health and Safety Management System
Potential
Hazard
Present?
(Y, N, ?)
Description
of Hazard
Possible
Effects
Timeframe
(acute/chronic)
Risk Code
(RAC)
Physical
Noise
Trips/slips
Chemical
Particulates
Indoor Vapors
VI Vapors
Biological
Mold/mildew
Ergonomic
16. 16
Another Concept for Harmonizing Environmental and
Occupational Risk Management Frameworks
Description
HHSC
Code
A
Likely to
occur
immediately
B
Probably
will occur in
time
C
Possible to
occur in
time
D
Unlikely to
occur
Death, permanent total disability,
or loss of facility or asset
I
1
Critical
1
Critical
2
Serious
4
Minor
Permanent partial disability or
major property damage
II
1
Critical
2
Serious
3
Moderate
4
Minor
Lost workday injury or
compensable injury, or minor
property damage
III
2
Serious
3
Moderate
4
Minor
5
Negligible
Injury involving first aid or minor
supportive medical treatment, a
minimal threat to personnel or
property, or a violation of a
standard
IV
4
Minor
4
Minor
5
Negligible
5
Negligible
Hazard Severity Mishap Probability
17. 17
Conclusions
• There is a distinct difference numerically between OELs (in this
case, TLVs) and VISLs.
• However, these differences become more understandable in the
context of how these values are used:
– TLVs –based largely on threshold for adverse effects but used in a more
precautionary way.
– VISLs - levels with larger margins of safety that are used in a risk
management framework with some limited flexibility.
• Neither set of values should be used without careful
consideration of the assumptions and limitations associated with
them.
18. 18
Conclusions (continued)
• Harmonization will remain difficult for some chemicals (TCE) until
values are revised.
• There are example of some chemicals where the basis exists for
harmonizing environmental and occupational activities
(benzene).
• Efforts to harmonize environmental and occupational levels are
under way but may occur over many years.
• Other risk assessment methods might be used to help bridge the
gap between environmental and occupational practice.
– American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z-10 standard, which has
been incorporated into DoD guidelines.
21. 21
Issues with Exposure Limits for
VI in Workplaces
• VI is addressed as a cleanup matter
– Managed in accordance with EPA/State guidelines under CERCLA/RCRA
• EPA’s guidance rejects use of OELs in assessing exposures from VI in
spaces containing workplaces
– EPA prefers the values (VISLs, RMLs) – there are examples of sites where this has
been a disruption to facility operations
• Current regulatory practice defaults to the VISLs (and RMLs).
• Conflicting jurisdiction with Federal agencies (EPA v OSHA).
• Multiple authorities potentially have a role in VI
Editor's Notes
There are a number of different OELs, such as OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) and ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). We won’t explore the differences between these values in this presentation. We focus on TLVs for comparison with VISLs, because TLVs are used world-wide, and are updated more frequently than PELs or RELs.
Comparison of occupational exposure limits (PEL, TLV) and another short-term exposure limit (the AEGL-1) with screening levels for VI, used for TCE. The TCE screening levels cover a range of values for both chronic and short-term exposures. This shows how VI screening levels are somewhat of a patchwork
This is an example of how EPA has a very quantitative approach to VISL development: the methods for assessing cancer risks and developing numerical unit risk factors. In contrast, TLVs for carcinogenic substances are more qualitative and based on WOE, However, for chemicals identified as known or probable human carcinogens, ACGIH recommends reducing exposures to as low as feasible. There are a few examples of OELs that are based on lifetime cancer risk – these are recent OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for substances such as dichloromethane. The 10-3 risk used by OSHA is based on the reasoning that 10-3 risk is also the fatality risk of accidents in typical industrial facilities. The purpose for using the 10-3 target risk is to avoid diverting limited health and safety resources from larger hazards to controlling small cancer risks.
This is another example of EPA’s more quantitative approach for developing toxicity values. This also shows the differences in populations that are protected – EPA’s definition of the RfC specifically includes sensitive populations, “An inhalation reference concentration (RfC) is defined as an estimate (with an uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk
BMD = benchmark dose
Example of where environmental and occupational risk management ranges overlap: in the range between 160 and 390 ug/m3, both a RPM and an industrial hygienist would recognize the need to reduce exposures, though they may use different sets of tools to achieve that objective. The overlap in these levels makes it easier for RPMs and IHs to coordinate efforts in managing VI exposures in commercial/industrial buildings. Benzene represents an example where there is some existing harmonization of the levels used to assess both environmental and occupational risks.
In contrast, TCE is an example where as yet there is no harmonization. IHs may conclude no significant exposures are occurring (1% of the TLV is a concentration of 540 ug/m3 in air), which would be a level of substantial concern to a RPM. This risks disruption of building operations, and risk communication problems (for example, the IH indicates “all clear”, and the RPM is requiring building occupants to be evacuated.
The disparities in occupational and environmental limits are slowly being resolved – primarily by movement in the IH community. A series of paper was published in November 2015 in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health – which includes more of a movement to EPA-style exposure levels.
See also:
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/14642-tsca-reform-what-does-it-mean-for-worker-safety
This matrix is part of the ANSI Z-10 OSHMS standard, for identifying and ranking workplace hazards – the objective is to place exposures from VI in context with the range of occupational risks, which must be prioritized in order to allocate resources for effectively controlling risks.
Physical: Noise; Vibration; Heat/Cold; Radiation- Ionizing, Non-ionizing, Infrared, UV, Visible
Chemical: Particulate – Dust, Mist, Fume, Fibers; Liquids - Acid/Bases, Solvents; Vapors and gases
Biological: Animal/Insect Pests; Microbial – Bacteria, Viruses, Mold/Mildew
Ergonomic: Repetitive motion injuries; Poor workplace design; Poor equipment design; Unusual work schedules
A concept for harmonization: the CERCLA risk ranges (lifetime cancer risks, non-cancer Hazard Quotients) overlain on a risk assessment matrix published in the ANSI Z-10 standard “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems”. This is a hypothetical concept, and further discussions
“Current practice” – current compliance practices for VI sites involves defaulting to the VISLs and RMLs for assessing workplaces.
VISLs – Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISLs) and Removal Management Levels (RMLs). Where “this has been a problem” comes in: TCE detected in indoor air from VI triggering building evacuation, because of the developmental toxic hazard with subacute exposures.
The conflicting jurisdiction: Need to read Laurence Kirsch’s paper, but the short story from him is that EPA usurps OSHA’s authority to determine workplace exposure standards. The issues about standards of protectiveness and age of the standards (OSHA’s) arise – as yet OSHA hasn’t engaged (something about silica).
Multiple directorates/authorities – Multiple directorates in DoD have a responsibility for protection of human health (similar to the OSHA and EPA issue) – however, there are differences in approaches, in certain ways – VISLs and TLVs are one example.