Scientific and legal experts are trying to resolve many problems in determining and monitoring health effects and in devising ways of compensating those who might have been injured by
Exposure to chemical waste sites “Just about every chemical manufactured winds up in dumps, so exposure opportunities are tremendous,” says Roy Albert of the New York University Medical Center. “Still, despite incidents such as Love Canal [Niagara Falls, N.Y.], where kids picked up things like raw chunks of lindane, high-level exposure is quite rare. The greatest concern is with long-term, low-level exposures that could lead to irreversible effects, such as DNA damage. These effects could be fixed and cumulative, the most salient being carcinogenic effects.” It is estimated that there are about 16 000 old waste disposal sites in the U.S., many of them abandoned. EPA has 419 sites slated for emergency cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). But if acute and chronic health effects of exposure to chemical waste disposal sites are to be evaluated, several questions must be answered in greater detail than they have been. For instance, to what chemical(s) are people being exposed and over what period of time? Did the victims live in the area for the entire period of the site’s existence or did they move in or out of the area during that period? What are to be considered harmful levels of such exposures, or, indeed, do levels below which there are no harmful effects exist? Are the exposure routes air pollution, soil, surface, or groundwater contamination, or some combination of these? By what environmental and biomedical monitoring techniques can the relationships between exposure to chemical wastes and disease be established? And if such relationships are established, what legal recourse do victims have? Given the links between exposure and disease-or even simply the necessity to do away with a source of exposure-what countermeasures are 288A
Envlmn. Scl. Teohrol., Vol. 17. No. 7, 1983
to be taken? “A crying problem is setting standards to guide remedial action,” Albert observed. “A sad story” “Evaluation of health effects at dumps is a sad story,” Lewis Kuller, chairman of the University of Pittsburgh‘s Department of Epidemiology told the Fourth Annual Symposium on Environmental Epidemiology. Sponsored by the Graduate School of Public Health of the University of Pittsburgh and by EPA, the May symposium was devoted to the evaluation of health
effects from waste disposal sites. Kuller offered the criticism that risk assessment is not usually considered separately from risk management. In the view of a National Academy of Sciences panel, risk assessment ,“entails hazard, exposure, and doseresponse estimates as well as risk characterization.” The desired end point would be the establishment of a clear relationship between “a common-source epidemic, continuous exposure, and health outcome.” For example, adverse ecological effects and cross-sectional mortality rates would
0013-936X/83/09150286A$O1.50/0
@ 1983 American Chemical Society
be shown conclusively to increase with decreasing distance from a disposal site. This end point might be more easily reached if a potentially exposed population stayed in a given area for many years, or even decades, and was uniform in virtually all other respects. But this situation is rare. People migrate into and out of areas, and thus may not sustain exposure over the entire time of the waste site’s existence. Additionally, people differ in age. sex, state of general health, socioeconomic status, and habits (alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, for instance). Among other criticisms Kuller listed were a general unavailability of morbidity, as opposed to mortality, data. And, according to Kuller, “you often can’t identify a specific chemical agent responsible for health effects; or if you can, you often can’t determine the route by which people were exposed to it.” Risk assessment also entails steps such as establishing national reference laboratories for detecting, analyzing, and quantifying effects of exposure to materials found at waste sites. Dump sites would be identified and characterized, and exposed cohorts identified as early as possible-certainly before any publicity in the media. A fear is that once such publicity comes out, the task of assessing cohort exposure and effects in a scientifically objective manner becomes exceedingly difficult. if not impossible. Risk assessment is but one facet of risk management-the one involving science ( I ) . Risk management considers the scientific components together with economic, political, and social aspects in order to determine what regulatory action should be taken. Evaluating contamination Locating, identifying, and characterizing the estimated I6 000 or more abandoned waste sites in the U.S. would be a formidable task. But modern technology might be helpful in carrying out this work, suggests Glenn Schweitzer, director of EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (Las Vegas, Nev.). For example, color infrared (IR) photography might spot a site containing leaking barrels of liquids, by depicting damage to vegetation. Remote sensing by aerial or satellite photography could locate pits, ponds, and lagoons. “Nowadays, geophysical methods for finding a plume of contamination in groundwater originating from land-disposed wastes are available.
While these methods still need work, they don’t cost as much as drilling.” Schweitzer pointed out. Among geophysical techniques he listed were electromagnetic and magnetometric methods, conductivity, resistivity, and radar. I f drilling proves necessary, data developed from geophysical studies could indicate where to drill, so that the higher costs would at least represent better-spent money. Then, more precise “down-hole” studies could point out contamination. For instance, detection of gases may show the presence of organics, while resistivity tests could reveal inorganic contaminants. Next, once the plume has been roughly defined, samples taken from test wells and analyzed might be used to develop a three-dimensional, computer-generated color isopleth map showing contours of the type, amount, and extent of contamination, along with curves for standard deviation. Schweitzer added that monitoring the zone above the water table-the vadose zone-with lysimeters for measuring soil moisture and its movement could provide an “early warning” of groundwater contamination. Pathways to humans Once a disposal site has been identified and emissions or a contaminant plume in groundwater has been characterized, will humans necessarily be adversely affected? Ifso, how? Toat-
Andelman: model.\ for predicting
plume mo~rmenl
tempt to answer these questions, one needs to know what chemical species exist at the site and what their physical and chemical properties are, says ES& T advisory board member Julian Andelman of the University of Pittsburgh. Among data points needed would be the oxidation state, ability to form complexes, stability, mobility, and degradability in air, soil, or surface or groundwater.
Knowledge of contaminant transport media and of movement and pathways into, out of, and within these media is also necessary, Andelman noted. Also needed are data concerning any ways in which the contaminant(s) may react with the media containing them, or with each other, and the effects of such interactions. This information could help scientists develop transport models to predict the actual movement of a contaminant plume in groundwater. Such a prediction, in turn, might lead to an estimate of when, if ever, the plume will reach drinking water sources, thereby presenting a threat to human health. A complication sometimes encountered in pathway assessment is that the source of contamination is not easily traceable. Andelman described groundwater contaminated with arsenic in oxidation states of 5+, 3+, I and 3-, indicating how this may affect the transport and treatability, and the possible toxicological implications, such as acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, or genotoxicity. Standards for arsenic toxicity are generally based upon the toxicity of the trivalent state (2).
+,
Defining human exposures I f only a quantitative assessment of internal exposure, for example, to contaminants from waste sites is needed, biological monitoring methods may adequately define such human exposures, says Laszlo Magos of the Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit (Carshalton, Surrey, England). He quoted R. L. Zielhuis’s definition of biological monitoring (3) as “the measurement of internal exposure through the analysis of a biological specimen.” This type of monitoring “must be clearly distinguished from the evaluation of health effects’’ such as screening for bladder cancer. enzyme changes, or chromosomal abnormalities (3). Biological specimens for direct exposure tests can consist of blood, urine, breath, hair, and teeth. Even noninvasive whole-organ tests can be run through neutron activation analysis ( 4 ) . Magos mentions analyses of liver and kidneys for cadmium in this manner. Other examples of directexposure tests entail blood tests for aldrin or lead; chromium or trichloroethylene (TCE) in urine; or carbon tetrachloride in breath. The indicator of aldrin in blood is actually its metabolite dieldrin for which a level greater than 5 X 10-3 mg/L would be considered a sign of excessive exposure ( 5 ) . Lead is detected directly in blood, and an “excessive exposure” is indicated by more Envirm. Sci. Technol.. VOI. 17. NO. 7. 1983
287A
than 0.3-0.4 mg/L (World Health Organization). An excessive exposure value for chromium in urine, read directly, is put a t 0.04 mg/L (corrected to a urine specific gravity of 1.024). while for TCE, more than 400 mg/L trichloro compounds indicates excessive exposure (6). Exposure to 5 ppm of carbon tetrachloride during a work shift results in 1.5 ppm in breath ( 5 ) . Among a number of examples of indirect and clinical (laboratory) exposure tests in blood and urine, Magos mentioned those for mutagens and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In blood, exposure to mutagenic compounds could be shown by cytogenic analysis in cultured lymphocytes and by alkylated hemoglobins: in urine, an
L
registry of exposed persons
Section 104(i)of CERCLA specifi. ally mandates an agency for toxic ubstances and disease registr) 4TSDR) that reports to the federal :enters for Disease Control (CDC) of le Department of Health and Human ,ervices. In December 1982, the Enironmental Defense Fund sued for npiementation of Section 104(i),with ie CMA as intervenor. Creation of the gency was announced in the Federal iegister of April 25, 1983. Attorney Roger Marzulla of the U.S. )epartment of Justice explained that rTSDR would carry out the following unctions: It would provide a registry of exNosed persons. a list of serious dis,ases and illnesses. and data con erning screening and studies to de ? m i n e relationships between expoures and ailments. in cwperation with the states, th~ lgency would create a list of site: :losed to the public or otherwise r e itricted by reason of toxic substa :ontamination. It would compile a compute1 nventory of the medical liter: lealing with the relationship betweei oxic substances and diseases. It would provide technical assis ance and coordination to handli ?mergenciessuch as Love Canal anb ;pillages. Since there was no ATSDR until this rear, funds were allocated to CERCLA ictivities within the CDC itself. For iscal year (FY) 1982, Congress budlet& 55 million for such activities; 58 nillion was budgeted for FY 1983. 2ongress is still considering the budget -Y 1984.
.
-
~
288A
indicator might be alkylated amino acids (7). Urinary PCB indicators would include copro- and uroporphyrins (8). Several shortcomings In some circumstances, “biological monitoring alone is not adequate and does not define the toxicity of exposure,’’ Magos warned. One problem is that “the value of biological monitoring is limited in time because of the clearance of toxic substances.” Second, “the assessment of exposure based on the frequency and severity of toxic effects is required when the history of exposure is unknown, or the exposure is discontinued.” Third, “the established dw-effect relationship may not be valid for every pattern of exposure, or population.” Finally, “when there is doubt about the reliability of the dose-effect relaionship, its reassessment cannot be nade without the evaluation of toxic :ffects,” Magos said. To try to surmount these shortcomings, exposure evaluation “must occasionally include tests for both the measurement and the effects of exposure, because only the absence or presence of effects can show whether exposure is or was acceptable [producing no adverse effects].” Victim compensation The determination of any connection that exists between hazardous waste sites and health effects is also the aim of a wntract awarded in March by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, Washington, D.C.) to Universities Associated for Research and Education in Pathology (UAREP, Bethesda, Md.). The UAREP study will also delineate the kind of data needed to define the nature and swpe of these health effects. More specifically, UAREP will attempt to: identify and determine the importance and relevance of existing data and locate the most knowledgeable scientists to carry out additional studies, establish preliminary guidelines on what constitutes a health hazard in relation to hazardous waste and how such hazards can be identified, and outline the organization and procedures for conducting any further studies. CMA’s concern with any waste site-health effects connection becomes understandable, in view of proposed amendments to CERCLA (Superfund), which could affect its member companies. These amendments, introduced in varying forms in both houses of Congress, will, if passed, create new liabilities under CERCLA
Envkm. Sci. Technol., VoI. 17, No. 7, 1983
for injury or illness attributable to hazardous wastes. Two congressional staff members and Sen. Robert Stafford (R-Vt.), told a meeting of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Environmental Law, held at Airlie, Va., in May, to expect passage of a federal victim compensation amendment. The only question is when, not whether, it will pass. They also predicted that the Superfund “kitty,” now funded at $1.6 billion, would be at least doubled, and perhaps raised as high as $6 billion. By what procedure and to what financial extent victims would be compensated through these amendments is not yet clear. But the general feeling
that seemed to be expressed at the Bar Association meeting was that compensation payments and allowances would cover medical expenses and a certain fraction of lost earnings. Whether compensation would apply to all or only chronic health effects and whether payments for lost income would be limited to a certain ceiling or indexed for inflation has yet to be resolved. But as Philip Cummings, minority counsel to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, forecast, “there will be a ‘generous’ compensation scheme in any federal bill, with means of getting payments and assistance to victims as rapidly as possible.”
The law’s presumption By what criteria would it be determined that one who might have been exposed to a waste disposal site is a victim entitled to compensation? For example, in amendments offered by Rep. John LaFalce (D-N.Y.), data from scientific studies concerning the contaminant(s) in the waste could be introduced into evidence. These might include animal and epidemiological data, especially health effects documents from EPA.
If such documents and data can be interpreted to indicate a link between exposure to the contaminant(s) and injury, the rebuttable presumption of the law will be that the exposed person is a victim meriting compensation. Other versions of the Superfund amendment bills outstanding may provide some other means for exposure-injury documentation and compensation. Since September 1981, California has had a victim compensation law. However, it is not as generous as federal bills, and it is more difficult to qualify for compensation (California Health & Safety Code, Sections 25370-25382, especially Section 25373). As of the end of April, no claims had been filed under that law. Minnesota has a “mini-Superfund” bill with victim compensation provisions, which was signed into law in May. In Japan, compensation mechanisms exist, but only where a clear relationship is established between the
disease and its cause-a determination based in large part on epidemiological data, attorney Michele Corash of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro (San Francisco, Calif.) said. She noted that, in contrast, California and New Jersey courts have permitted damages to be awarded to plaintiffs whose sole injury was fear of becoming ill because of hazardous waste.
victim compensation, and outlays could rise by many more billions of dollars. To avoid this, as Charles Breitel, former chief judge of New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it, “activities should be so conducted as to avoid causing injury in the first place.” -Julian Josephson
Who pays?
References
Another question is who will pay for funds for cleanup and victim compensation. Richard Stoll of the CMA observed that the chemical, petrochemical, and petroleum industries are, and will continue to be, assessed under Superfund. But he said that it is inequitable that these industries be assessed for costs in connection with SiteS they did not create, such as an asbestos site at Globe, Ariz., or mine waste sites at Tar Creek, Mo., and in Oklahoma. Costs Of cleaning Old sites would come to billionsof dollars. Add
( I ) Miller. S. S. Enpiron. Sci. Tcrhnol. 1983, 17.200~. (2) Pe0ples.S. A. 1n“Arsenic”: Lederer. William H.: Fenstcrheirn. Robert J.. Eds.: Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York. N . Y . , 19x3: p. 125. (3) Zielhuis. R. L . Scond. J . Work Enuiron. Hcoirh 1978.4, 1-8. (4) Harvey, T. C. et 81. Lonerr 1975, I , 1269-72. ( 5 ) Baselt. R . C. “Biological Monitoring Method for Industrial Chemicals”: Biamedical Publications: Davis. Calif.. 1980. (6) L ~ R. S e d ~ . J . Work ~ ~ ~ ~ Heolrh 1975.1.78-94. (7) Vainio. H . et al. Scond. J . Work Emiron. Heolrh 1981.7,241-51. (8) Colombi, A. et al. J . Appl. Toxieol. 1982, 2. 117.21.
Singer named associate editor In a move to continue the overall high quality of ES& T , Editor Russell Christman has appointed Philip C. Singer an associate editor, to replace Charles OMelia, who will continue his teaching and research assignments at the Johns Hopkins University. As of this month, Singer, wellknown in the water quality field, will be in charge of water pollution research manuscripts. He will provide a liaison with reviewers in the water category. Singer is a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is also director of its Water Resources Engineering Program. He received his PhD from Harvard University in 1969 and is a member of several professional organizations, including the ACS, AWWA, WPCF, and the AEEP. He is the recipient of three different awards for Excellence in Teaching at 0013-936X183~0916-0289A$01.50/0
@
lniversity of lorth Carolina and :Nalco-AEl Award as Advisor e Best PhD Iissertation in In1 dustrial Waste Treatment in 1980. Singer teaches graduate courses in aquatic chemistry and water and wastewater treatment processes and conducts research on chemical and physical aspects of water and wastewater treatment. The major focus of his research concerns oxidative treatment processes, solid-liquid separation processes, and metal-organic interactions in aquatic systems. He has published more than 60 papers on such subjects as the chemistry of aqueous ferrous iron, ozonation kinetics, trihalomethane formation and control, metal-organic interactions in natural waters, and treatment of coal gasification wastewater. Singer is also editor of “Trace Metals and Metal-Organic Interactions in Natural Waters,” published in 1973 by Ann Arbor Science.
’
Singer: liaison wirh water reuiewers
1983 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 17. No. 7. 1983
2891
~~
~i
