Mid-America Steel Drum Company, Inc. Saint Francis, Wisconsin

MASD is located at 3950 South Pennsylvania Avenue. The facility reconditions 55-gallon drums that have contained hazardous chemicals using a washing technique to remove the residual chemicals. Steel drums undergo multiple wash cycles, are acid washed to remove rust, shot blasted to remove paint and labels, then repainted. MASD is only allowed to process drums that are "empty", i.e. they contain an inch or less ofresidue in the bottom. Non-empty containers are termed "heavies" and must be sent back to the vendor [EPA 2017b]. EPA cited MASD St. Francis for multiple violations of the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including unlawful storage ofhazardous waste; EPA found a "heavy" drum on-site with ignitable hazardous waste and one with corrosive hazardous waste [EPA 2017e,f].Mid-America_Steel_Drum_HC-F_508.pdfAcronym List -- Introduction -- What are the potential health risks from the vapor intrusion pathway? -- When should a vapor intrusion pathway be evaluated? -- Why is it so difficult to assess the public health hazard posed by the vapor intrusion pathway? -- What is the best approach for a public health evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway? -- Public health evaluation. -- Vapor intrusion evaluation process outline -- References -- Appendix A. Vapor Intrusion Health Assessment Checklist -- Appendix B. Information for Evaluating Variability -- Appendix C. Chemicals for Vapor Intrusion Assessment -- Appendix D. Sample Template Table for Media-Specific Screening of Vapor Intrusion Data -- Appendix E. Special Considerations for Evaluating Petroleum Vapor Intrusion.2019641

An assessment of two decades of contaminant monitoring in the Nation’s Coastal Zone.

Executive Summary: Information found in this report covers the years 1986 through 2005. Mussel Watch began monitoring a suite of trace metals and organic contaminants such as DDT, PCBs and PAHs. Through time additional chemicals were added, and today approximately 140 analytes are monitored. The Mussel Watch Program is the longest running estuarine and coastal pollutant monitoring effort conducted in the United States that is national in scope each year. Hundreds of scientific journal articles and technical reports based on Mussel Watch data have been written; however, this report is the first that presents local, regional and national findings across all years in a Quick Reference format, suitable for use by policy makers, scientists, resource managers and the general public. Pollution often starts at the local scale where high concentrations point to a specific source of contamination, yet some contaminants such as PCBs are atmospherically transported across regional and national scales, resulting in contamination far from their origin. Findings presented here showed few national trends for trace metals and decreasing trends for most organic contaminants; however, a wide variety of trends, both increasing and decreasing, emerge at regional and local levels. For most organic contaminants, trends have resulted from state and federal regulation. The highest concentrations for both metal and organic contaminants are found near urban and industrial areas. In addition to monitoring throughout the nation’s coastal shores and Great Lakes, Mussel Watch samples are stored in a specimen bank so that trends can be determined retrospectively for new and emerging contaminants of concern. For example, there is heightened awareness of a group of flame retardants that are finding their way into the marine environment. These compounds, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are now being studied using historic samples from the specimen bank and current samples to determine their spatial distribution. We will continue to use this kind of investigation to assess new contaminant threats. We hope you find this document to be valuable, and that you continue to look towards the Mussel Watch Program for information on the condition of your coastal waters. (PDF contains 118 pages

Identifying Exposure Units for the Public Health Assessment Process

Guidance on Identifying Exposure Units, V1 \u2014 Sept 19, 2020Environmental contamination is found over many different geographical scales, from small localized areas caused by spills to widespread contamination from decades of environmental releases. Many factors influence how people may contact this contamination. For instance, daily routines, personal preferences, cultural practices, permanent fences, and natural barriers all affect where people frequent. Health assessors must bridge both types of information\u2014environmental contamination information and how people come in contact with the contamination in order to evaluate whether exposures present public health hazards. One step in this process is identifying exposure units, which are defined as physical areas where a person\u2019s activities result in contact with a contaminated environmental medium.This document presents ATSDR\u2019s guidance for defining exposure units for use in the public health assessment process.Citation: [ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2020. Identifying Exposure Units for the Public Health Assessment Process. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, September 19.atsdr-exposure-unit-guidance-508.pdfGuidance on Identifying Exposure Units, V1 \u2014 Sept 19, 202

Exposure dose guidance for water ingestion

Based on the availability of updated exposure parameters, many from the 2019 update of drinking water ingestion values in the Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it is necessary that parameters used in calculating doses in our public health evaluations be updated to reflect the best available science.This water exposure dose guidance (EDG) provides health assessors with updated guidance on how to estimate water-ingestion related exposures to potential contaminants of concern (COCs). The guidance document for the Shower and Household Water-use Exposure (SHOWER) model addresses inhalation of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds during household water use, such as while showering (ATSDR 2020).Exposure Dose Guidance for Water Ingestion, V1 \u2013 Jan 31, 2023Citation: [ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2023. Exposure Dose Guidance for Water Ingestion. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Jan 31.ATSDR-EDG-Drinking-Water-Ingestion-508.pd

Concentrations and potential health risks of metals in lip products.

BackgroundMetal content in lip products has been an issue of concern.ObjectivesWe measured lead and eight other metals in a convenience sample of 32 lip products used by young Asian women in Oakland, California, and assessed potential health risks related to estimated intakes of these metals.MethodsWe analyzed lip products by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry and used previous estimates of lip product usage rates to determine daily oral intakes. We derived acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) based on information used to determine public health goals for exposure, and compared ADIs with estimated intakes to assess potential risks.ResultsMost of the tested lip products contained high concentrations of titanium and aluminum. All examined products had detectable manganese. Lead was detected in 24 products (75%), with an average concentration of 0.36 ± 0.39 ppm, including one sample with 1.32 ppm. When used at the estimated average daily rate, estimated intakes were > 20% of ADIs derived for aluminum, cadmium, chromium, and manganese. In addition, average daily use of 10 products tested would result in chromium intake exceeding our estimated ADI for chromium. For high rates of product use (above the 95th percentile), the percentages of samples with estimated metal intakes exceeding ADIs were 3% for aluminum, 68% for chromium, and 22% for manganese. Estimated intakes of lead were < 20% of ADIs for average and high use.ConclusionsCosmetics safety should be assessed not only by the presence of hazardous contents, but also by comparing estimated exposures with health-based standards. In addition to lead, metals such as aluminum, cadmium, chromium, and manganese require further investigation

Exposure dose guidance for body weight

Based on the availability of updated exposure parameters, many from the 2011 Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it is necessary that assumptions used in calculating doses in our public health evaluations be updated to reflect the best available science. This update includes body weight recommendations for additional special groups that can be considered as part of the PHA process.This exposure dose guidance (EDG) for body weight provides health assessors with updated guidance on appropriate body weights to use in public health evaluations.Citation: [ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2023. Exposure Dose Guidance for Body Weight. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Jan 31.ATSDR-EDG-Body-Weight-508.pd

Neurobehavioral Evaluation for a Community with Chronic Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide Gas

In May 2000, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the US government conducted a health investigation in response to community concerns regarding ambient and indoor hydrogen sulfide (H2S), odor, and health symptoms in Dakota City, Nebraska. The objective was to determine whether adult residents in an area with repeated exposure to H2S showed poorer performance on neurobehavioral tests than unexposed residents. Study participants were required to meet age (≥16 years of age) and length of residency (2 years) eligibility requirements. A battery of computer-assisted standardized neurobehavioral tests was administered in English or Spanish. A questionnaire was used to collect information about participants, demographic and health status. Three hundred forty-five people agreed to participate. After the exclusion of 10 persons, analyses were conducted on 335 participants; 171 residents in the target area and 164 residents in the comparison area. The two groups were comparable in demographic characteristics and various health conditions. Overall, neurobehavioral test results for the target and comparison groups were similar. Residence in the H2S-exposed area was associated with marginally poorer performance on a test of memory, namely, match to sample score, and a test of grip strength. However, these differences were not significant. Deficits in overall neurobehavioral performance were not associated with exposure to H2S in this study

Evaluation of shallow residential soils : arsenic mine site, Town of Kent, Putnam County, New York EPA facility id: Nyd982531469

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requested that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluate soil samples collected in 2017 and 2018 at residential properties on the USEPA Arsenic Mine Site in Kent, Putnam County, New York. The USEPA collected samples to determine the extent of arsenic in residential soils and whether prompt action is needed to reduce harmful exposures to arsenic-contaminated soils and mine tailings. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) reviewed the soil data collected by the USEPA and evaluated the public health implications of the contamination. This health consultation formalizes the NYSDOH\u2019s evaluation of the data, and this health consultation was prepared under a cooperative agreement with ATSDR.The intent of this health consultation is to ensure that residents have the best information possible about how environmental contaminants might affect their health. A health consultation provides advice on specific public health effects that could occur following human exposure to a hazardous material. The evaluation of arsenic contaminated soil at select residential properties forms the basis for the conclusions and recommendations in this health consultation. The evaluation does not consider other possible sources of arsenic exposure such as inhalation of arsenic contaminated soil or dust, consumption of untreated drinking water, consumption of home raised animal products, or consumption of fruits and vegetables grown in contaminated soil. Consideration of these additional potential exposure pathways may likely support and strengthen the conclusions and recommendations contained in this health consultation.Arsenic_Mine_HC-508.pdf2019655

A Review of Events That Expose Children to Elemental Mercury in the United States

Concern for children exposed to elemental mercury prompted the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the sources of elemental mercury exposures in children, describe the location and proportion of children affected, and make recommendations on how to prevent these exposures. In this review, we excluded mercury exposures from coal-burning facilities, dental amalgams, fish consumption, medical waste incinerators, or thimerosal-containing vaccines. We reviewed federal, state, and regional programs with data on mercury releases along with published reports of children exposed to elemental mercury in the United States. We selected all mercury-related events that were documented to expose (or potentially expose) children. Primary exposure locations were at home, at school, and at others such as industrial property not adequately remediated or medical facilities. Exposure to small spills from broken thermometers was the most common scenario; however, reports of such exposures are declining. The information reviewed suggests that most releases do not lead to demonstrable harm if the exposure period is short and the mercury is properly cleaned up. Primary prevention should include health education and policy initiatives