-------
*S
y -
K Z
a ui
i2
z z z z z
i,
I
•D
w
o
M
(0
i
I
C il
-•> N
aS
a u>
oonoa-ooooooaootnnoNiKioaoinaioa
—
S
oi
W3
(0
a
X
u
ft
zzz-zz
o
ui
III
0
z-
zzz-z
a
X
Z
flGENC
Qowai s
-------
I S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1 1 I I I I I
ill
i 5 I
5
2-« I 1*1 I I -«•"' 1
31
1 £
!
ill
S
i
•
!
1
"!01-! I I I I «-» I |-»«j-->|--|~|
.
il
l 1*1 t I i"i-i«t'>>l i •«*• t "a i - i i i I
-i i i i |-"
ssi"i i i i
i;
Mi
- t t j »
I I
I I
I
I
-------
-------
CHLORDRNE Summary.
Appendix #3
11/19/86
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM; Improper use and/or applicaticai of chlordane/chlordane
mixture may expose household residents to airborne concentrations of these
coitpounds in indoor air.
2. EXPOSUPE;
Seminary of Exposure Routes;
a. Misapplication by conmercial applicator allowing intrusion of pesticide into
the home (e.g., accidental piercing of ventilation ducts during application).
b. Misuse/misapplication by homeowners and/or noncommercial applicators
(e.g., using product for other than specified purpose).
c. Structural characteristics of building allow intrusion of Chlordane after
proper application (e.g., cracks in foundation, footings, etc.).
Population Potentially Fxposured in Efaltimore Study Area:
a. Homes/year in Maryland treated with termiticides = 250,000.
b. Current U.S. termiticide usage is roughly 70% chlordane or a chlordane/
heptachlor mixture: 250,000 homes/year X 70% = 175,000 homes treated
with chlordane or chlordane mixture.
c. Chlordane Use in Baltimore Study Area in 1982 = 76,648 Ibs (22% of Md. use):
175,000 homes X 22% = about 3R,500 homes in Baltimore Study Area treated
with chlordane or chlordane mixture.
d. Number of people potentially exposed in the Baltimore Study Area = 106,000.
B. City = 43% households = 38,500 X 43% = 16,555 X 2.7 people/hh = 44,698.5 people
P. Co. = 37% households = 38,500 X 37% = 14,245 X 2.7 people/hh = 38,461.5 people
A.A. Co.= 20% households = 38,500 X 20% = 7,700 X 3.0 people/hh = 23,100.0. people
(Bait. City + Bait. Co. + A. A. Co. = 44,698.5 + 38,461.5 + 23,100 = 106,260.)
e. Number of Chlordane misapplications in Md. (reported to Md. Dept. of Agric.) -
15 cases in past 4 years (9 suspected misapplication cases).
No. of Chlordane misapplications by homeowner/noncommercial applicators - Unknown.
3. HEALTH EFFECTS;
a. Carcinogenic!ty.
o Group B2, FPA Carcinogenic Assessment Guidelines - Probable Human
Carcinogen (inadequate human evidence, sufficient animal
evidence).
o Group 3, IARC - Cannot be classified as carcinogen (inadequate human
evidence, limited animal evidence).
b. Other Health Effects.
o Acutely toxic to Central Nervous System
o Teratogenicity, Reproductive Effects, Mutagenicity - Inconclusive.
4. CONTROL TECMJIQUES/TECHNDLCIGIFS;
a. Mechanical alteration during construction (e.g., avoiding soil/wood contact?
increase crawlspace ventilation).
b. Alternative termiticides (experimental included).
c. Pretreatment of new homes (e.g., treat soil before building house).
5. CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL;
aT U.S. EPA/OPP - gathering data to restrict Chlordane use to certified applicators.
b. Md. Legislation (5/13/86) - Pesticide applicators must undergo training in
first thirty days of employment (Effective July 1, 1986).
c. If EPA does not restrict use to licensed applicators, Md. Dept. of Agriculture
may attempt to accomplish this.
-------
-------
FORMALDEHYDE Summary.
11/19/86
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Formaldehyde present in building materials,
insulation, consumer products, etc. can offgas in the indoor environment.
2. EXPOSURE;
Stannary of Exposure;
Pressed wood products containing urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins and
urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) are the major sources of elevated
indoor air concentrations. UFPI use has decreased dramatically since 1982
(CPSC tan); main concern, therefore, is UFFI use between 1975-1981.
Formaldehyde emissions from TJFFI depend upon nature of the product, age of the
source, indoor temperature and humidity, and improper installation.
Formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products depend on a number of factors,
e.g., type of product resin content, indoor temperature and humidity, age of
product, surface area of product relative to indoor air volume (loading rate).
Population Potentially Exposured in Baltimore Study Area;
UFFI; Major building type of concern is residential. Most concern is with UFFI
installed between 1975-1981.
- Since UFFI has declined in use since 1981 (CPSC ban), there is little
potential for exposure in homes 1-5 years old, or new homes in future.
- Therefore, potential concern is for homes 5 years old or older (prior to
CPSC ban). However, off gassing of formaldehyde decreases with age of the
product. There is a significant reduction in formaldehyde levels after
the first year or two. therefore, there is little potential for broad
exposure from past or current use of UFFI.
Pressed Vtood Products: Pressed wood products are of concern in all building
types; however, it is of more concern in mobile homes due to the greater
surface area of wood products/indoor air volume of the mobile home. (There
were about 5,300 mobile homes in the Baltimore Study Area in 1985.) It is
very difficult to characterize exposures in buildings because the sources
of formaldehyde can be continuously renewed, e.g., new pressed wood furniture
in an office or new kitchen cabinets in a 30-year old home.
However, some 1985 national data do give potential exposures to certain
formaldehyde-containing products used in construction of new single-family
detached homes:
- About 11,600 homes were built in 1985 in the Baltimore Study Area, of which
about 5,000 were single-family detached homes, 3,600 were single-family
attached homes, and 3,000 were multi-family homes.
- Of the 5,000 single-family detached homes;
24% (about 1200 hones) used both particleboard underlayment and/or
hardwood plywood wall paneling;
15% (about 750 homes) used particleboard underlayment flooring; and
12% (about 600 homes) used hardwood plywood wall paneling.
- Of the 3,600 single-family attached homes;
16% (about 580 homes) used particleboard underlayment flooring; and
6% (about 220 homes) used hardwood plywood wall paneling.
- Of the 3,000 multi-family homes:
8.5% (about 250 homes) used particleboard underlayment flooring; and
2% (about 60 homes) used hardwood plywood wall paneling.
-------
POFMALDEHYDE
-2-
- Nearly all single-family hones (about 8,900 hones) used kitchen cabinets.
- About 30-40% of new single-family homes (about 2,600 - 3,500 homes) used
hardwood plywood doors.
- About 47% of new single-family homes (about 4,100 hones) used
particleboard closet shelves.
- The use of particleboard underlayment has the nost significant impact on the
average concentration in the home.
- The potential exposed population to formaldehyde in new homes in the Baltimore
Study Area is: (11,600 homes, 1985) X (2.8 people/household) = 32,480 people.
Mobile homes = 5,300 x 2.8 people/household = 14,840 people.
New Homes (32,480) + Mobile hones (14,840) = 47,320 people.
3. HEALTH EFFECTS;
a. Oarcinogenicity.
Group Bl, Probable Human Carcinogen (CAG) - limited
human evidence, sufficient animal evidence.
b. Other Health Effects.
- Toxicity: irritation of the eye, nose and throat at low level exposure.
Irritant of upper and lower airways and pulmonary effects.
- Some evidence as potential animal nutagen.
- Not a potential human or animal teratogen.
CONTROL TEX3!NIC3UES/TEX3M)LOGIES;
a~IRemoval of formaldehyde-emitting materials, e.g., UEFI.
b. Avoid using building products and furnitures with high formaldehyde levels.
c. Change UP resin formulation.
d. Use substitute resin.
e. Post-cure product treatments, e.g., ammonia fumigation, scavenger- and
non-scavenger-containing barriers.
f. Increase building air exchange rate.
g. rise of dehumidifier, air cleaners, air conditioning coil.
5. CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL;
a. FPA investigating regulatory options for: fabrics treated with formaldehyde
resins, and construction materials.
b. CPSC recommended working with industry to develop voluntary standards to
control formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products and to inform
appropriate organizations of health effects information.
c. CPSC plans to write, in 1987, a booklet for consumers on remedies of
formaldehyde emissions.
d. Several ongoing studies monitoring formaldehyde in mobile and conventional
housing are being conducted.
-------
VOLATILE OKGMJIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) Sumtary.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM!
11/19/86
Thousands of chemicals present in household and office products and furnishings
can Vie released into the indoor air in varying concentrations. The average
home contains some 45 aerosol containers, each of which nay contain up to 15
different VOCs.
2. EXPOSURE;
Summary of 'Exposure;
The primary sources of VDCs in the indoor environment are various products and
materials which contain a VOC of potential concern. These products include:
persona] hygiene and cosmetic products, building materials, cleaning products,
biocidal treatments, hobby materials, molded household wares, drycleaned
clothing, refrigerants, aerosol propellents, gasoline, and office products such
as reproduction solutions.
VDCs are also present, but to a lesser degree, in the combustion products of
furnaces, fireplaces, woodstoves, and Verosene heaters. Other sources include
the volatilization of organic compounds from drinking water use indoors, and
intrusion of VOTs indoors from the outdoor air.
The most significant source is, however, by far the myriad of consumer products
and materials and their chemical ingredients.
Two major studies on exposures to volatile organic compounds indoors have revealed
that: (1) concentrations indoors are generally higher than the concentrations
found outdoors; (2) the sources are numerous, and (3) ranges of concentrations
vary greatly, often by factors of 10 or 100. Volatile organic compounds have
been found in the air inside coimiercial buildings, public buildings, schools,
office buildings, and hospitals, as well as private homes.
Population Potentially Exposured in Baltimore Study Area:
Given the ubiquitous presence of chemical containing products and materials in
indoor environments, the entire study area population will at one time or another,
be exposed to volatilized organics in indoor air. The extent of the exposure will
depend on several factors, including: time spent in a particular location,
presence of certain products and their chemical compositions, extended use of a
particular product, and characteristics of the environment such as temperature,
humidity, air exchange rates, etc.
In 19R7, the EPA will be conducting a Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM)
study in the Baltimore IEMP study area which will shed some guantitative light
on the exposures of individuals to specific VOCs in the indoor environments.
3. HEALTH EFFECTS;
Human health effects of indoor non-occupational exposures to VOCs are not yet
well understood. The large number of chemicals found indoors makes it extremely
difficult to associate health effects with exposures to specific compounds.
Various compounds found indoors have been associated with headache, irritation
of eyes, mucous membranes, and respiratory system, drowsiness, fatigue, and
general malaise. Occupational exposure studies have documented health effects
from VOCs including cancer, mutagenicity, respiratory ailments, heart disease,
allergic reactions, and other toxic effects. In general, concentrations of '\tOCs
measured in the non-occupational environment are one or two orders of magnitude
lower than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Permissible
-------
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VDCs)
-2-
Exposure Limits (PFL) and American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists' (AOGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLV). The lower levels, however,
may still be excessive and cause serious health effects, althrough the effects
of chronic and acute exposures to these lower concentrations are not yet
generally Icnown.
A. CONTROL
a. Reformulation of consumer products to reduce or eliminate VOC content.
b. Removal or sealing of building materials.
5. CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL ;
a. CPSC has authority to ban or regulate hazardous substances produced for
use by consumers. CPSC actions to date include:
o ban of vinyl chloride from hairsprays /aerosols .
o ban of carbon tetrachloride in household products.
o pending action to require warning label on products containing
methylene chloride.
o warning labels are required on furniture polishes, oven and drain cleaners,
turpentine, lighter fluid, ethylene glycol, methyl alcohol, solvents,
kerosene, varsol and other petroleum distillates, perchloroethylene.
b. Federal research, coordinated by the Interagency Committee on Indoor Air
Quality (CIAQ), is being conducted to characterize indoor concentrations
and sources.
EPA Office of Toxic Substances is researching the use of consumer products,
VOC content, and personal exposures.
c. Baltimore TEAM study is currently being planned and designed; sampling
will be conducted in 19fl7.
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Pygiene (DHMH) activities include:
o investigation of citizen complaints.
o enforcement of CPSC actions.
o public information and creation in conjunction with CPSC.
o research and surveys in conjunction with CPSC.
American Lung Association of Maryland (ALAM) offers seminars and other forms
of public education to persons who utilize art materials.
-------
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS Surrroary.
11/19/86
1. STATEMFTSTT OF THE PROBLEM;
Biomass and fossil fuels are burner* indoors for heating, cookinq, and
recreational purposes. Combustion at less than optimal conditions produces
gases and particulate products, including nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, organic and inorganic particulates, and various metals and
organic vapors. Inadequate venting of these products results in increased
indoor concentrations, often substantially higher than outdoor concentrations.
2. EXPOSURE:
Summary of Exposure;
Coiqpound
Nitrogen Oxides . . .
Carbon Monoxide . . .
Carbon Dioxide . . .
Respirable Suspended.
Particulates
Sulphur dioxide . . .
Source
Natural gas appliances and unvented kerosene heaters.
Gas cooking ranges, ovens, and furnaces? tobacco smoke;
vehicle emissions from attached garages.
Combustion sources; tobacco products; metabolic processes.
Tobacco smoke; gas ovens and furnaces; kerosene heaters;
fireplaces.
Ose of improper or low grade fuels in unvented kerosene
heaters; fuel oil or natural gas appliances. Main source
is infiltration of contaminated outside air.
Combustion of fossil fuels results in a rich array of organic compounds. In
most cases, however, the concentrations of organic compounds from combustion are
small compared to other indoor sources of such compounds. Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are an exception, however, where combustion is the major source.
A combination o^ combustion sources is often found in the same building or home.
The concentrations of pollutants found indoors depend on a complex interaction
of the following factors:
o type of appliance, e.g., gas appliances, wood stoves, etc.
o fuel quality and type.
o combustion conditions, i.e., optimal or poor conditions.
o age, physical design, condition and maintenance of the appliances.
o air exchange rate in the home or building.
o nature and duration of appliance usage.
o pollutant generation rate.
Population Potentially Exposured in Baltimore Study Area;
The 1984 Baltimore Gas & Klectric Residential Appliance Survey and 1985
Regional Planning Council household estimates give the following estimates of
residential combustion appliance usage:
Appliances
o Ranges - Natural Gas
Ranaes - Bottled Gas
o Clothes Dryer - Natural Gas
o Hot Water Heater - Natural Gas
Hot Water Heater - Bottled Gas
Hot Water Heater - Oil
o House Heating - Natural Gas
House Heating - Bottled Gas
House Heating - Oil
Kerosene Heater
Wood Stove
Fireplace
Households in the Baltimore Study Area
431,998
26,626
157,608
421,928
13,140
53,738
364,724
2,737
201,693
27,413
31,609
66,665
-------
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
-2-
According to these statistics, of 668,900 households in the Baltimore Study Area:
o 569,154 households (or 85%) have a combustion device- for primary heating.
o 488,806 households (or 73%) have a combustion appliance for hot water heating.
o 157,608 households (or 24%) have a natural gas fired clothes dryer.
o 458,624 households (or 69%) have a gas fired range.
If one includes electric appliances, the relative use of fossil or biomass fuels
fired appliances to the total number of households is:
Appliance
Ranges
Clothes Dryer
Hot Water Heater
House Heating*
Percent Using Contoustion Fuel vs Electric
67% (vs 33% electric)
40% (vs 60% electric)
79% (vs 21% electric)
90% (vs 10% electric)
*This does not include kerosene heaters, wood stove, or fireplaces.
1?5,687 households have one or more of these devices as a secondary heating
appliance in addition to a primary gas, oil, or electric furnace.
Given these statistics, it is apparent that the vast majority of the households
have at least one combustion appliance which is a potential source of indoor
air pollutants. In reality, most household have more than one of these devices.
In addition:
o Of the 668,900 households in the Baltimore Study Area, 549,498 households
(or 82%) were over 10 years old.
o Jurisdiction
Baltimore City
Baltimore County
Anne Arundel County
Combustion-Fired Primary Heating Systems
Older than 10 years Old _
~
(or 189,327)
68% (or 141,043)
58% (or 57,295)
o 10% of the households in the Baltimore Study Area (or 66,890 households)
had a person less than 5 years of age.
o 17% of the households in the Baltimore Study Area (or 100,335 households)
had a person 65 years of age or older.
Inasmuch as heating systems require more maintenance to operate optimally
as they get older, and well over 50% of the heating systans are over 10 years old,
a large segment of the population is potentially exposed to combustion products
from an aging furnace. There also is a significant number of especially
susceptible persons, under 5 years and over 65 years of age, potentially exposed.
3. HEALTH
Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides produce immediate short-term effects on
airway reactivity, resulting in increased vulnerability to other pollutants.
o Asthmatics appear to be most susceptible.
o Exposed children may be at increased risk of chronic lung disease.
o Persons at special risk are those with chronic bronchitis, emphysema,
asthma, and children under 2 years old.
o Nitrogen dioxide affects host defenses against bacterial pulmonary
infections in animals - relevance to humans not yet established.
o One study found association between gas range use and severe cases of
chest illness in children before age two.
-------
-3-
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
d.
e.
f.
Carbon Monoxide.
o Carbon Monoxide causes tissue hypoxia brought on by a reduced ability
of the blood to carry oxygen to body tissues.
o Asphyxiation occurs at greater than 1800 ppm for 1 hour.
o Loss of alertness, impaired perception, loss of normal dexterity, re-
duced learning ability, drowsiness, confusion, and finally coma and
death.
o At relatively low levels, persons with heart problems may be at partic-
ular risk due to high oxygen demand of the heart.
Carbon Dioxide.
o Carbon dioxide causes adverse health effects at very high concentrations,
o Slight elevations in the blood level increases the breathing rate.
o Health effects in guinea pigs were observed at 3000 ppm.
o Carbon dioxide is not a significant health effect pollutant from com-
bustion.
Respirable Suspended Particulates. Major effects of concern attributed to
particle exposure include:
o Impairment of respiratory mechanics, and lung functions.
o Aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
o Altered lung defense mechanisms.
o Carcinogenesis due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons adsorbed on the
particle surfaces.
o Increased susceptibility to infectious diseases.
Organic Compounds.
o Many organic compounds have been identified with cancer, mutagenicity,
respiratory ailments, heart diseases, and other toxic effects.
o PAHs carried by particulates are considered to be a cause of lung can-
cer; risk is assumed to be directly proportional to accumulated exposure.
Sulphur Dioxide. Sulphur dioxide is an irritant and causes significant
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics.
CONTROL TECHNIQUES/TECHNOLOGIES;
a. Source removal.
b. Source use restriction.
c. Modification of equipment and factors, e.g., fuels.
d. Use of air cleaning devices.
e. Ventilation improvements.
f. Proper maintenance and operation of sources.
g. Combustion efficiency testing.
CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL;
a. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
o Proposed survey that will target high exposure groups.
o Study was completed on space heaters; it will be available in Summer 1986.
b. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
o Proposed New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for woodburning stoves
is expected by January 1987 and promulgation in 1988. Effect on indoor
air quality is unclear.
-------
-4-
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
o Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) study found that increased ambient
fine particulate concentrations result in increased indoor concentra-
tions; thus, the NSPS for woodburning stoves could reduce indoor par-
ticulate levels as well as ambient levels.
c. Gas Research Institute (GRI).
O Study on unvented gas space heaters has been completed; data are being
analyzed.
. o Ongoing study of gas ranges and associated health effects.
o Major study of problem of indoor air pollution from gas appliances.
d. Other Research.
o Federal CIAQ proposing a study on combustion products.
o American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) studying PAHs.
o Health Effects Institute (HEI), Cambridge, Mass, is overseeing research
on health effects of low exposures to carbon monoxide and nitrogen
dioxide.
e. Baltimore Study Area.
o Baltimore City has a ban on unvented space heaters (gas and kerosene).
o Baltimore County restricts use of unvented kerosene heaters to single-
family dwellings with owner consent.
o Maryland DHMH regulations restrict sulphur in fuel content:
1.0% by weight for solid fuels and residual oil; 0.3% in distillate oil.
-------
RADON Summary. 11/19/86
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
Radon, a naturally occurring gas produced by radioactive decay of uranium,
can become dissolved in water or released with soil gas. Exposure from
elevated indoor air levels may lead to adverse health effects (lung cancer).
2. EXPOSURE;
Summary of Exposure:
The two primary sources of naturally-occurring radon in buildings are soil
gas and groundwater; less significant contributions may come fron building
materials, outdoor air, and homeheating fuels. In most situations, the major
contributor to indoor radon concentrations is from soil and rocks.
The main mechanism of radon gas transport into the hone is pressure driven
flow. The most important pathway into the home is through cracks and other
openings in the building substructure. The amount of radon entering the home
depends on many factors, such as building type and characteristics, soil .
factors (e.g., presence of radium, permeability, etc.) and meteorology.
Population Potentially Exposured in Baltimore Study Area;
Few data have been received by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene (DHMH); as of July 1, 1986, 210 Maryland measurements were available,
of which 18 measurements were from the Baltimore Study Area:
Of the 18 measurements, 6 had levels <4 pCi/1; 10 had levels between 4-20
pCi/1; and 2 had levels between 21 - 50 pCi/1.
No other data are presently available for the Baltimore Study Area.
A number of monitoring studies have been conducted in Maryland:
o 1980 sampling of 58 homes in Mt. Airy area using grab samples.
Average concentration was 3.8 pCi/1.
o 1982 sampling of 41 homes in Damascus area using passive activated
carbon integrating devices. Average radon concentrations for living
areas (41 homes) were 3.9 pCi/1 and for basements (37 homes) were 9.6 pCi/1.
o 1985/1986 sampling of 22 towns in Md. using passive activated carbon devices.
Wintertime: 31% of homes had >_ 4 pCi/1 in the living area, and
51% of homes had _>_ 4 pCi/1 in the basement.
Summertime: 7% of homes had >_ 4 pCi/1 in the living area, and
39% of homes had >_ 4 pCi/1 in the basement.
Other Md. data include:
o Terradex Corporation reported 16 hones tested:
31% with levels > 4 pCi/1; the highest reading was > 20 pCi/1.
Potential exposure in Maryland is unknown. Many factors are involved: location
and condition of the house, seasonal variations, etc. More will be known after
Md. DHMH receives more measurements from homes in the Baltimore Study Area and
after the proposed Md. survey of radon in homes.
3.
4.
HEALTH EFFECTS;
Carcinogenicity. The primary site is the lung, due to exposure to alpha
radiation from inhaled decay products of radon.
a.
b. The interaction of exposure to radon with exposure to tobacco smoke may
result in a disproportionate increase in risk.
COMTROL TECHNIQUES/TECHNOLOGIES;
a. Prevent radon from entering the home, e.g., seal major radon entry routes,
prevent radon entry into the home by collecting radon gas at the source
and ventilating away from the house.
-------
-2-
Reroove radon and its decay products from the home through ventilation.
c. Remove radon decay products from the home through filtration/ionization,
e.g., air cleaners. *
d. Remove the source of radon, i.e., remove building materials containing radon.
5. CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL;
a. Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), Radon Workgroup.
This group is primarily responsible for coordinating federal research and
activities on indoor radon.
b. EPA Radon Action Program:
o Has developed a quality assurance program to test indoor radon monitoring
devices for accuracy;
o Is developing measurement methods and procedures;
o Is supporting demonstrations and evaluations of selected mitigation techniques;
o Is developing a training program for federal and state employees on measurement
diagnosis, and mitigation of radon problems;
o Is identifying elevated radon areas through geological and other data;
o Is providing state assistance (design of radon surveys, management and
evaluation of survey data, etc.);
o Is preparing various publications;
o Is conducting information dissemination programs and evaluation;
o Will" conduct a national survey of radon in U.S. homes; and
o Will examine new home design and construction techniques to reduce potential
exposure.
c. KPA Office of Drinking Water Activity. A Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is
being developed for radon in public drinking water supplies.
d. Department of Energy.
o Conducting research on radon sources, variability of radon levels, radon
entry mechanism into and behavior within buildings, control techniques/
mitigation, health effects;
o Producing documents on radon; and
o Conducting survey work.
e. Other Organizations. Various activities such as developing and distributing
information (both to building industry members and the public), and collecting
measurements.
f. Baltimore Study Area.
o Md. DHMH Division of Radiation Control is collecting data for Maryland;
Md. Geological Survey will plot these test results to look for unusual
patterns or clusters of homes in Maryland having elevated levels.
o Md. is making available to the public both general information on radon
and its health effects, and specific information on indoor sampling kits.
o Md. State Community Health Programs has requested budget (FY 1988) for
a radon survey in Maryland. If funding is approved, the survey will
beqin 7/1/87.
o American Lung Association of Md. (ALAM) is going to distribute radon
information to the public in Maryland.
*not recommended by EPA due to controversy over effectiveness for the fraction
of radon decay products unattached to airborne particles.
-------
PASSIVE POKING Suntnary.
11/19/86
1. STATEMENT OF TOE PROBLEM;
Exposure of a nonsmoker to indoor air polluted with sidestream smoke (that
which comes directly from the burning end of the tobacco product) and exhaled
mainstream smoke (that which the smoker -inhales directly into the lungs)
may cause adverse health effects.
2. EXPOSURE;
Population Potentially Exposuredin Baltimore Study Area;
1985 Population Estimate Total Adult*
Baltimore City 760,000 544,300
Baltimore County 665,200 502,950
Anne Arundel County 396,300 281,900
TOTAL 1,821,500 1,329,150
* An adult is defined here as 20 years and older;
here as 12 - 19 years old.
Teenager*
78,900
66,900
45,670
191,470
a teenager is defined
National Percentage of U.S. 19R5 Adult Pop. that smoke: about 31%.
National Percentage of U.S. 1985 Teenage Boys that smoke: about 11%
National Percentage of U.S. 1985 Teenage Girls that smoke: about 13%
Data provided by Baltimore City Health Dept.: 43% of Baltimore City pop.
smoke. Therefore, estimated Baltimore City population that smoke:
623,200 (adults + teens) X 43% = 267,976 or about 268,000.
To estimate the number of smokers in Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County,
the national percentages are used:
Bait. Co. adult pop. + A. A. Co. adult pop. = 784,850 X 31% = 243,304.
Bait. Co. teen pop. + A. A. Co. teen pop. = 112,570 X 12% = 13,508.
Therefore, the estimated Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County population
that smokes: adults + teens = 256,812 or about 256,800.
Total estimated population in Baltimore Study Area that smokes (excluding pre-
teen smokers) = 268,000 + 256,800 = 524,800.
Estimate of Nbnsrookers (potentially exposed to tobacco smoke) in the Baltimore
Study Area:Total population - Smokers = 1,821,500 - 524,800 = 1,296,700.
3. HEALTH EFFECTS;
a. Carcinogenicity. Lung cancer and other potential cancer sites.
b. Other Health Effects.
o Passive smoking may increase symptomatic coronary heart disease and has
been associated with impaired pulmonary function.
o Evidence also exists that physical growth and development deficiencies
are more likely to occur in children of smokers.
4. CONTROL TECMNIQUES/TECMTOLCXSIES;
a~iUse of air cleaning devices.
b. Ventilation Improvements.
5. CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL;
a. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Clearinghouse to collect
scientific and legislative information on smoking and disease in order to
provide worldwide reference standards on which to base public health
and other programs.
-------
PASSIVE SMOKING
-2-
b. Private Businesses.
o In 1986, 36% of U.S. businesses had established smoking policies.
o In 1979, 42% of blue collar conpanies had designated smoking areas and
28% had prohibited smoking completely; 15% of white collar conpanies
had designated areas for smoking and 11% had prohibited smoking completely.
c. Other Organizations. Other national organizations provide: legislative
actions against smoking, public education and awareness, legal support,
and clearinghouse for state and local clean indoor air information and
cigarette excise tax legislation.
d. Baltimore Study Area.
Current Smoking Restrictions;
o MD HEALTH & ENV. CODE ANN. Section 11-205 (1982).
Regulates smoking on premises of hospitals, nursing homes, health
clinics, and physicians' offices.
********
o MD TRANS?. CODE ANN. Section 7-705 (Supp. 1984).
Prohibits smoking or carrying lighted tobacco products in public mass
transit bus, railcar, or transit station.
o MD ANN. CODK Article 70, Section 35A (1980).
Prohibits smoking in intrastate motor bus carrier.
o Baltimore County Code Section 18-27, Smoking on Public Transit Vehicles
prohibited (1973).
o Anne Arundel County Code Section 17-313.
Prohibits taxicab driver from smoking without consent of the passenger.
******
o MD ANN. Code Article 89, Section 64 (1979).
Prohibits smoking on public elevators.
******
o State Fire Prevention Code Section F-310.0, Smoking Conditions (1984
Edition BOCA Fire Prevention Code). Prohibits smoking where conditions
are such as to make smoking a hazard.
o Baltimore City Fire Prevention Code Section F-310.0> Smoking Conditions
(1978 Edition BOCA Fire Prevention Code). Prohibits smoking where
conditions are such as to make smoking a hazard. This is being updated
to coincide w/1984 BOCA Fire Prevention Code.
o Baltimore County Code Section 28.3, Precautions against Fire, General
(1976 Edition of American Insurance Association (AIA) Fire Prevention
Code). Prohibits smoking where conditions are such as to make smoking
a hazard. This is being updated to coincide with 1984 BOCA Fire
Prevention Code.
*******
Local Organizations;
o The Healthy Majority. Statewide coalition of over 23 health agencies
and individuals with the goal of supporting the establishment of
smoking and nonsmoking sections in public places. 1986 legislation
-------
PASSIVE SMOKING
-3-
was introduced, which prohibited smoking in retail stores, restaurants,
and state office buildings. It did not pass. In addition to planned
introduction of legislation at the state level in 1987, they have
targeted two counties for legislation at the local level.
o Mary landers for Nonsrrokers1 Rights, Incorporated, Baltimore, MD.
o American Lung Association of MD, Lutherville, MD.
Programs are concerned with the prevention of onset of cigarette
smoking and reducing the number of current smokers, as well as increasing
the number of smoke-free facilities and activities. Activities include:
curricula development and comprehensive stroking prevention programs
in schools; public education; education and referral service for
medical care providers; cessation clinics and programs; legislative
support; nonsmoking policy assistance.
o Bowie GASP. Bowie GASP is a local nonprofit voluntary organization,
involved with public education, legislative activities concerning
smoking in public places, etc.
-------
-------
ASBESTOS Summary.
11/19/86
!• STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.
Asbestos, a group of naturally occurring minerals that separate into fibers,
is used in many products in the home, public and commercial buildings, and
schools. If asbestos fibers are released to the air indoors, they may easily
be inhaled or swallowed, thus creating a hazard to building occupants.
Inhalation is the main route of exposure.
2. EXPOSURE.
Summary of Exposure.
Potential exposure to asbestos depends on:
o location of the asbestos-containing material (ACM) in the structure,
e.g., boiler room vs cafeteria, or in ceiling spaces used as return air
plenums with high potential for fiber release and distribution.
o Type of ACM, e.g., boiler lagging and insulating pipe wrapping vs floor tile.
o Physical condition of the material, i.e., friable (easily crumbled or
reduced to powder by hand pressure) material vs nonfriable material.
o potential for contact with the ACM, which may release airborne fibers,
i.e., areas subject to accidental damage or vandalism (such as high traffic
halls, utility rooms, etc.) vs located behind solid wall or ceiling.
o exterior ambient air levels.
The most important factor listed above is friability of the ACM.
Three forms of asbestos are generally found in buildings:
o sprayed or troweled-on surfacing materials;
o insulation on pipes or boilers, and ducts? and
o miscellaneous forms, such as wallboard, ceiling tiles, and floor tiles.
Materials in the first two categories above can be friable. Those in the
third category are nonfriable; however, any ACM that is damaged during repair
or renovation may release asbestos fibers.
4.
Population Potentially Exposured in Baltimore Study Area;
Government Owned Buildings and Boards of Education Buildings:
see chart
Private Buildings:
Baltimore City
Baltimore County
Anne Arundel County
3. HEALTH EFFECTS.
No. of Demolition
Permits Reviewed/Yr
190
50
No. of Renovation
Permits Reviewed/Yr
1,400-1,500
Unknown
Total
1,590-1,690
about 1,000
50+
a. Carcinogenicity. EPA GAG Group A, Known Carcinogen
o Mesothelioma - tumor of cells of membranes covering lungs and other body
organs.
o Lung and other cancers, such as larynx, pharynx, oral cavity, esophagus,
stomach, colon, rectum, kidney, and ovary.
o Exposure to both asbestos and tobacco smoke can increase the risk of
developing lung cancer.
b. other Health Effects.
o Asbestosis - irreversible lung scarring; can be fatal in occupationally
exposed persons.
CONTROL TECHNIQUES/TECHNOLOGIES.
a. Use substitute material, (new buildings)
b. Use proper abatement method and techniques, i.e., removal, encapsulation,
enclosing material, (existing buildings)
-------
ASBESTOS
—2—
5. CURREOT ACTIVITY LEVEL.
a. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Programs to address asbestos include: National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs); Asbestos in Schools Program; Technical
Assistance Program: Contractor Certification; Asbestos Information and
Training Centers; and Worker Protection Rules (during abatement).
The 1986 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act passed, which will require
EPA to set standards for identification andabatement of asbestos in
schools; require public and private elementary and secondary schools to
develop management plans describing abatement actions to be undertaken;
requires states to develop accreditation programs and review the management
plans prepared by schools, and requires schools to implement management
plans and complete them in timely fashion.
EPA has also proposed a rule under TSCA §6 to prohibit the manufacture,
importation, and processing of asbestos in certain products and to phase
out the use of asbestos in all other products.
b. Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC).
o CPSC banned the use of asbestos in certain consumer products.
o CPSC will be drafting enforcement policy to notify the public that labelling
requirements of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, §2(p), apply to
consumer products containing asbestos.
o CPSC conducted a Homes Investigation of asbestos in homes in Philadelphia,
Cleveland, and San Francisco. 61 of 66 (older) homes sampled (bulk
sampling) were confirmed to contain asbestos. 45 hones will follow up
with airborne sampling,
o CPSC is developing educational information for the consumer (booklet).
c. Other Organizations.
o White Lung Association provides public education concerning asbestos
hazards.
o American Lung Association performs educational, referral, and legislative
activities.
o Asbestos Information Association represents asbestos manufacturers and
importers in the U.S. and Canada.
o National Asbestos Council is a trade association of abatement contractors.
o Safe Building Alliance publishes information (health effects, exposure,
occurrences of ACM, technical management action), and performs regulatory
and legislative monitoring and liaison.
d. Baltimore Study Area.
GOVEPM1EOT OWNED BUILDIN5S.
a. State of Maryland. Survey of state owned buildings, with abatement
performed as necessary with funds allowed.
b. Baltimore City.
o Neighborhood Progress Administration (NPA). NPA acquires for Baltimore
City property for demolition, development/renovation purposes.
Properties must be inspected prior to demolition, renovation, etc.
o Baltimore City Asbestos Task Force. Purpose - develop a comprehensive
asbestos management program for government owned buildings, including
Board of Education facilities. Performed survey of school system
and government owned buildings; personnel protection; maintenance
workers' training and awareness program.
-------
ASBESTOS
-3-
c. Baltimore County.
o Asbestos Coordinating Committee. Purpose - enhance communication
and coordination among agencies with buildings that contain asbestos.
Performed survey of government owned buildings.
d. Anne Arundel County.
o Survey of government owned buildings.
BOARDS OF EDUCATION
a. State of Maryland.
o Performed survey of school buildings, with abatement performed as
necessary with funds allowed.
o Developing set of contractor credentials and specifications hired to do
school inspections.
o Developing set of procedures used to conduct school inspections.
o Conducts asbestos workshops for school systems personnel.
o Collects data from school boards each year on asbestos activity status.
b. Baltimore City. (see Government Owned Buildings)
o Performed survey of school buildings, with abatement performed as
necessary with funds allowed.
c. Baltimore County.
o Performed survey of school buildings, with abatement performed as
necessary with funds allowed.
o Provides information updates to school personnel.
Provides Board personnel with training on asbestos removal.
Provides oversight of school/government owned building projects.
o
o
d. Anne Arundel County.
o Performed survey of school buildings, with abatement performed as
necessary with funds allowed.
o Provided training of in-house personnel concerning minor abatement jobs.
e. Other Organizations.
o Private and church schools are independent and responsible for asbestos
management in their own schools.
o Archdiocese of Baltimore has surveyed its member schools; abatement was
performed as necessary.
PRIVATE BUCDIHGS
a. State of Maryland.
o Department of Health and Mental ftygiene (DHMH) - Licensing of businesses
involved in asbestos project; asbestos training course certification
program; and enforcement and support activities.
o State Employees Program - specifies equipment, procedures, and type of
work a State employee can perform. Training program established.
b. Baltimore City.
o Enforces State Air Quality Asbestos regulations, with enforcement actions
taken through the State.
o No local regulations or ordinances specifically address asbestos.
o Responds to citizen complaints.
o Office of Building Engineer issues demolition/renovation permits; sites
are not inspected prior to issuing the permits.
-------
ASBESTOS
o Baltimore City Health Dept. receives job notices from M3. DFWH;
if job is significant, City inspectors will monitor the work.
o Baltimore City Council Bill 925, Building Code Asbestos Removal, is
being reviewed for conment; it would require any structure certified
free of asbestos before demolition removal or rehabilitation.
Baltimore County.
o Enforces State Air Quality Asbestos regulations. Enforcement actions
for NESHAPs projects are taXen by the State DHMH; enforcement actions
for Non-NESHAP projects are taken under Baltimore County Code §13-18,
Health Nuisances.
o No local regulations or ordinances specifically address asbestos.
o Responds to citizen complaints.
o Baltimore County Building Permit Applications (for renovation/razing of
buildings erected before 1978) are reviewed by Baltimore County Health
Department as part of the permit review system. On-site inspection is
required for all projects, to determine presence of asbestos. Monitoring
is performed from beginning of abatement work through to completion/
reoccupancy, as well as transport and disposal of asbestos waste.
Inspections and
d. Anne Arundel County.
o Enforces State Air Quality Asbestos regulations;
enforcement actions are taken by State DHMH.
o No local regulations or ordinances specifically address asbestos.
o Responds to citizen complaints.
o Office of Inspections and Permits issues demolition/renovation permits.
Sites are not inspected, prior to issuing the permit.
o Anne Arundel County receives job notices from M3. DHMH but does not
routinely inspect these projects.
-------
CHLOROFORM Summary.
2/24/R7
1. ffTAtiMEOT OF TOE PROBLEM; Volatile oroanic compounds have been shown to
transfer from water to air When heated or aerated. This is continuous,
leading to an enrichment of air at the point of use, and diffusion through the
"House. In water disinfected with chlorine, trihalomethanes are formed through
chemical reaction. tXiring household water use, e.g., showers and washing
machines, chloroform is volatilized into the indoor air.
2. EXPOSURE; Fxposure to indoor airborne concentrations of chloroform can result
from several sources, such as showers, baths, dishwashers, laundry machines,
and humidifiers. Airborne chloroform has also been masured at indoor swimming
pools.
the concentrations of volatilized chloroform found in indoor air are dependent
on a number of factors, including:
o frequency and duration of water appliance use
o pollutant volatilization rate
o home air volume and air recirculation rate
o air infiltration and exfiltration rate
o air mixing factor
o outdoor pollutant concentration
o volume of water use
o indoor temperature.
A. Inhalation from Various Types of Water Uses.
Research has shown that the fraction of a VOC released to the air is
about the same as radon. The research on radon volatilization has shown
that *or laundry and dishwshing machines, the transfer efficiency can be
as high as 90%. Hie comparable figure for showers was 63%, and for tub
baths 43%. Thus, the volatilization of chloroform would take place at
these same transfer efficiencies.
Using a single-compartment indoor air quality model and various assumptions
(e.g., daily respiratory volume of 20 m^ and daily water intake from
0.15L to 2L) exposure from the air route can be as significant as that from
water ingestion. It is shown that the relative uptakes ^rom the inhalation
and ingestion routes point to the possibility of substantial air exposures
of volatile organic compounds from water use in the home.
1. Inhalation from Showers and Tub Baths. In one study utilizing a
laboratory bath-shower system, volatilization of chloroform and
trichloroethylene was found to be greater than 50%. The air concentrations
of chloroform were measured for both use of the shower and filling of
the bath tub, with concentrations during showering found to be higher.
?. Inhalation from Humidification of the Building. Humidifiers add
moisture to interior air From the drinking water supply. Moisture is
added by evaporation of water, or disspelling aerosols, either directly
into the "home or into furnace duct systems tJiat provide air to the
home interior. Chloroform in the water supply is likely to approach
100% release into the indoor air because of its high volatility.
-------
CHLOROFOM -2-
Exposure to chloroform via home humidifiers is relatively small.
Using a chloroform concentration of 60 ppb (worst case scenario for
Baltimore) and several assumptions ("house air volume of ?0,000 cu.
ft., air infiltration of 20,000 cfm/hr, and humidification rate of
13 gals/day), the airborne chloroform levels would only be about 2 X
10 -7 g/m3.
3. Inhalation from Indoor Swimming Fbols. Indoor swimming pools and spas
are a possible source of airborne chloroform exposure from the use of
chlorine as a disinfectant in the pool water.
Bromine is also used *br disinfection in some swimmina pools and spas.
Therefore, inhalation of bromoform, another trihalomethane, is a
possible question.
Exposure depends on the chemical competitions between the bromine and
chlorine reactions, which are based on a number of factors, including
the amount o^ chlorine or bromine added to the pool water, the amount
of chlorine already in the water, water temperature, room volume, air
circulation, agitation of the water in spa hot tubs, etc. Exposures,
therefore, are difficult to characterize.
One recent study measured chloroform and bromoform concentrations 2 cm
above the water. surface at indoor swimming pools and spas. The maximum
measured concentrations were as follows:
Pools, Chlorinated only
Pools, Brominated only
Pools, Chlorinated and Brominated
Spas, Chlorinated only
Spas, Brominated only
Spas, Chlorinated and Brominated
B. Exposures in the Baltimore Study Area.
Chloroform (mg/m-*) Bromoform (mg/m3)
.900 .0001
.013 .051
.215 .054
.699 .0001
.102 .167
.255 .142
1. R&ta Pertaining to the Baltimore Study Area.
population in Baltimore City and Baltimore County served by the
Ashburton and Montebello Filtration Plants: 1,381,500 (100% of
Baltimore City population and 90% of Baltimore County population.
o 1980 population in Anne Arundel County served by Anne Arundel County
public water system or Baltimore City water system: 209, 224
(about 56% of total population).
o 1980 population in the Baltimore Study Area potentially exposed to
chloroform in indoor air: 1,590,724 (PP% of total population).
Modelling of Potential Exposure in Baltimore Study Area. Utilizing
a simplified single compartment indoor air quality model, an estimate
of the maximum indoor air concentrations resulting from volatilization
of oroanic chemicals in water can he calculated. Then, utilizing
Baltimore Metropolitan data on chloroform in drinking water, the
relative air and water exposures for a home in the Baltimore area can
be determined.
-------
CHDOPOPOFM
-3-
Tfie model hone has the following characteristics:
o air volume is 450 nP
o air recirculation is 1350 m3/hr
o infiltration and exfiltration rates are 33« m^/hr
o typical water use is 30 L/hr (family of four)
o temperature indoors is 77 degrees P.
Based on worst case Baltimore metropolitan treated drinking water THM
•^ata from January 1984 to September 1985, a chloroform concentration
in water of 60 ppb is used.
Assuming the pollutant is continuously generated and 100% volatilized,
the maximum indoor air concentration in the model home is calculated
to be 0.001 ppm.
Assuming a respiratory volume of 20 rtP/day for an adult male:
Daily inhalation exposure = 0.10 ing/day.
Assuming a daily total water intake" of 2 liters:
Daily ingestion exposure .= 0.12 ing/day,
or, assuring a daily tap-water intake of 0.15 liters:
Daily ingestion exposure = 0.009 ing/day.
This comparison is based on worst case numbers and a very specifically
defined home. The model does confirm, however, that inhalation
exposure can be as significant as ingestion exposure.
3. HEALTH Eb'WTTS.
B.
C.
Carcinogenicity. Chloroform is considered to be a Probable Human Carcinogen
by EPA GAG and IARC. Although it was evaluated by the ingestion route,
and not inhalation, it is believed that the carcinogenic response is not
dependent on the route of exposure to the body. The main target organs
are the liver and kidney.
Non-Carcinogenic Effects. Acute exposures to chloroform through inhalation
have demonstrated toxicity to the central nervous system, liver, kidney,
and heart. Chronic inhalation studies revealed toxicity to the liver,
and kidney and possibly the central nervous system.
Teratogenic and Reproductive Effects. No data for humans are available.
Inhalation animal tests showed chloroform to be a potential development
toxicant. There is the potential of causing fetal development delays,
adverse effects in pregnancy maintenance, and lab animal terata.
D.
Mutagenicity. No definite conclusion can be reached.
mutagenicity is possible.
Studies show that
-------
CHLOROFORM
4. COOTPQL TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES.
A. Removal of trihalonBthanes by aeration or adsorption.
B. Removal of trfhalomethane precursors.
C. Use of Disinfectants other than free chlorine.
s. CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIVITY LEVEL.
A. EPA.
The FPA Office of Drinking Water is writing criteria documents on
Disinfectants, including TFMs. The External Review Draft is expected
by the end of FY 19P7? the Final Draft is expected by the end of FY 1988.
Draft Maximum Contaminant Levels Goal (MCLG) will then be developed,
based on health effects.
According to the 1986 amendments of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Final
MCLGs and MCLs will be published in the.Federal Register in 1989.
B. Baltimore TEAM Study.
An FPA Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) study will be conducted
in 1987. Chloroform levels will be measured by personal monitors, indoor
and outdoor fixed site monitors, breath samples, and water samples.
C. Chloroform Monitoring at Swimming Pools.
The Baltimore County Health Department has conducted a monitoring study at
indoor swimming pools and spas for both chloroform and bromoform. Results
are found in the Appendices to the Chloroform Background Information Document.
-------
Appendix #4a
SECTION 1
Toxicology
Thomas J. Haley, Ph.D.
Honorary Professor of Pharmacology
University of Arkansas for the Medical Sciences
Little Rock, Arkansas
TOXICOLOGY DEFINED
Toxicology is the science of poisons, their effects on the
body, various antidotes for their action, and their detec-
tion in body fluids and tissues. It is considered a new
science, even though Hippocrates, the father of medicine,
advised his students on the toxic properties of the drug
Veratnun alba, and Paracelsus, in the sixteenth century,
pointed out that the difference between a therapeutic dose
and a toxic one was only a matter of quantity. The degree
of toxicity of chemicals is shown in the Hodge-Sterner
Table.
Exper. LDto;Dose
per Kilogram of
Body wt
<1.0 mg
1-50 mg
50-500 mg
0.5-5 gm
5-15 gm
>!5gm
Degree of
Toxicity
Dangerously toxic
Seriously toxic
Highly toxic
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
Extremely low
toxicity
Probable
Lethal Dose for
a 70 kg Man
A taste
A teaspoonrul
An ounce
A pint
A quart
More than a
quart
Since all chemicals can be toxic, it is necessary to define
the conditions of an exposure as well as the amount of
chemical involved in an exposure to compare toxicities.
TOXICITY RATING SYSTEM
In Section 6, the following system of toxicity rating is
used to indicate relative hazard:
U —unknown
This rating covers chemicals for which insufficient data
are available to enable a valid assessment of toxic hazard
to be made. Such chemicals usually are in one of the
following categories:
1. No information has been discovered in the literature,
and none is known to the authors.
2. ijmitod informatioo from •i»»«"«i experiments is
available, but it is not possible to relate it to human
exposure. The data are mentioned to indicate to the
reader that fnjf««i experiments have been done.
3. The validity of published toxicity data was ques-
tioned by the authors.
s None = no toxicity (0)
This designation is for chemicals that fall into the fol-
lowing categories:
1. Chemicals that produce no toxic effects under any
conditions of normal usage.
2. Chemicals that require overwhelming doses to pro-
duce any toxic effects in humans.
Low = slight toxicity (1)
1. Acute local Chemicals that on a single exposure
lasting seconds, minutes, or hours cause only slight
effects on the skin or mucous membranes or eyes,
regardless of the extent of exposure.
2. Acute systemic. Chemicals that can enter the body
by inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact and pro-
duce only slight toxic effects, regardless of the dura-
tion of exposure or following the ingestion of a single
dose, regardless of the amount absorbed or the extent
of the exposure.
3. Chronic local Chemicals that on repeated or contin-
uous exposure covering days, months, or years cause
only slight and reversible damage to the skin or
mucous membranes. The extent of the exposure can
be great or small.
4. Chronic systemic. Chemicals that on repeated or
continuous exposure covering days, months, or years
cause slight and usually reversible toxic effects on
the skin, mucous membranes, or eyes. The exposure
can be by ingestion, inhalation or skin contact and
may be great or small. Slightly toxic chemicals pro-
duce changes readily reversible once the exposure
ceases with or without medical intervention.
Mod = moderate toxicity (2)
1
Acute local Chemicals that on a single exposure
lasting seconds, minutes, or hours produce moderate
toxicity to the skin, mucous membranes, or eyes.
The effects can be the result of an intense exposure
for seconds or a moderate exposure for hours.
2. Acute systemic. Chemicals mat after being absorbed
by inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact produce
moderate toxicity after a single exposure lasting sec-
onds, minutes, or hours or after the ingestion of a
single dose.
3. Chronic local CTt**nir?** Out on continuous or re-
-------
a sicriofii
petted exposure over days, months, or yean •
moderate toxicity to the skin, mucous membranes,
or eyes.
4. Chronic systemic. Chemicals that on absorption by
ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact cause moderate
toxicity after continuous or repeated exposures over
days, months, or years.
Under the moderate classification are chemicals that
can cause reversible or irreversible changes in the human
body not necessarily severe enough to cause serious physi-
cal impairment or threaten life.
High = severe toxicity (3)
1. Acute local Chemicals that on a single exposure
covering seconds or minutes can cause injury to
the skin, mucous membranes, or eyes of sufficient
severity to threaten life, cause permanent physical
impairment or disfigurement.
2. Acute systemic. Chemicals that after a single expo-
sure by inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact cause
injury of sufficient severity to fhreaten life. The expo-
sure may last seconds, minutes, or hours or may
be a single ingestion.
3. Chronic local. Chemicals that on continuous or re-
peated exposures covering days, months, or years
can cause injury to the skin, mucous membranes,
or eyes of sufficient .severity to threaten hie or pro-
duce permanent impairment, disfigurement, or irre-
versible change.
4. Chronic systemic. Chemicals that on continuous or
repeated exposures by inhalation, ingestion, or der-
mal contact to small amounts for days, months, or
years can produce death or serious physical impair-
ment.
TOXICTTY AND HAZARD
Toxicity is defined as the ability of a chemical to cause
injury once it reaches a susceptible site in or on the body.
Hazard is defined as the likelihood that a chemical will
cause injury under circumstances of ordinary use.
EXPOSURES
1. Acute exposure, which entails a short duration, means
exposure to chemicals absorbed by inhalation, dermally,
or by ingestion with the duration of total exposure mea-
sured in seconds, minutes, or hours. As applied to inges-
tion it means a single dose.
2. Subchronic exposure means intermediate exposures
between acute and chronic and may be for up to 90 days.
3. Chronic exposure means exposures of long duration
and as applied to dermal and inhalation covers prolonged
or repeated exposures with durations of days, months,
or years. With ingestion, it means repeated doses of the
chemical for days, months, or years.
EFFECTS
It is essential to differentiate between acute and chronic
effects of chemicals and acute and chronic exposures.
Chronic toxicity mint be related to chrome illness pro.
duced by exposure to chemicals regardless of the duration
of such exposure; even an acute exposure may produce
a chronic illness, i.e., heavy metals and carcinogens. Re-
peated exposure to such chemicals accentuate chronic
illness. On the other hand, exposure to cyanides or sulfides
does not produce chronic illness but instead produces
acute poisoning and death.
Toxic effects may be local or systemic, depending on
the area exposed. Local exposure affects the nose, eyes,
mouth, throat, skin, and various parts of the respiratory
and gastrointestinal tracts; absorption does not have to
occur. With chronic exposure, however, absorption does
occur, and the site of damage may be remote from the
site of contact. In many cases both local and systemic
damage occurs.
DOSAGE
Dosage is the most important factor in determining
whether a given chemical will produce a toxic effect. There
is a large variation in the toxicity of chemicals, and even
water can cause illness under certain circumstances. For
comparisons of the toxicities of different chemicals, the
median lethal dose (LOW) is usually used as the yardstick
and is stated as weight of poison per unit body weight
or surface area. The median lethal dose is a statistical
estimate of the amount of .chemical required to kill 50%
of a given population of test animals. It is useful also
to make a comparison of the susceptibility of various
animal species regardless of size. To be meaningful, the
LDM must specify the experimental conditions, route of
administration, species, age, sex. number of doses, and
the time of the measurement in days or weeks. Other
factors may include the route of exposure, i.e., ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal; type of formulation, temperature,
humidity, barometric pressure, physiologic state of the
subject, and the possible interaction between two or more
administered chemicals. This last factor requires knowl-
edge of body enzymes that may be stimulated or de-
pressed, which then causes rapid or delayed elimination
of a given chemical.
TOXIC LEVELS
Everyone is interested in the highest level of exposure
to toxic chemicals at which no deleterious effect is noted.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) has set such levels for human expo-
sure in industry. They are called Threshold Limit Values
(TLV's) and formerly were known as Maximum Allowa-
ble Concentrations (MAC's). As new information be-
comes available, they may be revised upward or down-
ward, and as soon as the information becomes available
other compounds are added to.the list. The TLV's refer
to air concentrations of a given chemical to which an
individual can be repeatedly exposed for 8 hours per day,
5 days per week. Because some individuals can experience
hypersensitivity even at the TLV level, all workers should
be pre-employment tested. Because the TLV's are time-
-------
Justification for the Pollutant Rating Scores.
FORMALDEHYDE:
Appendix I4b
12/2/86
1. Population Potentially Exposed; 3 (50,001 - 250,000 population).
Population potentially exposed to formaldehyde in new hones = 11,600 hares (1985)
X 2.8 people/household = 32,480 people?
Mobile homes = 5,300 hones X 2.8 people/household = 14,840 people;
Total = 32,480 + 14,840 = 47,320 people.
Added to this figure are those people in older homes potentially exposed to new .
formaldehyde-containing products. This would push the population over into
Category 3, at a minimum.
2. Health Effects; 2.5
GAG Group Bl Probable Human Carcinogen with other toxic effects.
Some controversy on carcinogenicity (EPA Study/ National Cancer Institute -
Formaldehyde Institute Study).
3. Public Concern*; 1 LOW.
4. Agency/Org. Perception of Health Threat*; 1 LOW.
5. Current Activity Level; 2 MEDIUM - Federal regulatory and research activities;
national monitoring studies; formaldehyde industry activities;
little local activities (local inspections upon complaint).
ASBESTOS;
1. Population Potentially Exposed; 4 (250,001 - 1,000,000 population)
At a minimum, school children potentially exposed:
(1980) Age 5 - 19; Baltijnore City - 190,500
Baltimore County = 95,900
Anne Arundel Co. = 147,300
433,700
These population figures are in Category 4, + children not exposed and other
sources of exposure (residential).
2. Health Effects; 3 - CAG Group A Known Carcinogen-
3. Public Concern*: 3 HIGH.
4. Agency/Org. Perception of Health Threat*; 3 HIGH.
5. Current Activity Level;- 3 HIGH - Nfcny federal, state, and local activities.
* Rankings for Categories (3) Public Concern and (4) Agency/Org. Perception of
Health Threat were based on the experience and professional judgement of the
IAP Workgroup members.
-------
JUSTIFICATION -2-
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS t
1. Population Potentially Exposed; 5 (>1,000,000 population)
70% of population have gas fired range = 458/624 X 2.8 people/household =
1,284,147. Population > 1,000,000 = Category 5.
2. Health Effects; 2
A number of caipounds are involvedr largely based on N02 effects (adverse
effects at low concentrations) as well as other pollutants. Discount effects
of PAHs as they are a minor part of the Combustion Products.
3. Public Concern*; 1 LOW.
4. Agency/Org. Perception of Health Threat*; 2 MEDIUM.
5. Current Activity Level; 2 MEDIUM - Some Federal surveys, studies; seme local
restrictions (e.g.,Baltimore City has restriction on unvented space heaters).
***********
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs);
1. Population Potentially Exposed; 5 (>1,000,000 population)
The average home contains some 45 aerosol containers, each of which tray
contain 15 VOCs. Considering the number of products on the market, the
workgroup came to the concensus that a large portion of the population was
potentially exposed.
2. Health Effects; 1
Sane toxic effects at lower concentrations. Primarily irritant effects,
exacerbating pre-existing diseases. Discounted carcinongens because there
are few in the whole group of VOCs.
3. Public Concern*; 1 LOW.
4. Agency/Org. Perception of Health Threat*; 2 MEDIUM.
5. Current Activity Level; 1 LOW - A few Federal regulatory and research activities?
little local activities.
* Rankings for Categories (3) Public Concern and (4) Agency/Org. Perception of
Health Threat were based on the experience and professional judgement of the
IAP Workgroup members. . . - ""
-------
JUSTIFICATION -3-
RADCN;
!• Population Potentially Exposed: 4 (250,001 - 1,000,000 population).
Limited data are available from Baltimore Study Area. 12 out of 18 samples
had levels >_ 4 pCi/1. 12.5% of hones in U.S. contain significant amounts
of radon.
492,000 hones X .125 » 61,875 hones X 2.8 people/household - 173,250 people.
Group felt that this was low due to geological structures found in the
Baltimore area (ex: Baltimore Gneiss etc.). Therefore, the workgroup came
to a concensus to place this in Category 4.
2. Health Effects; 3 - Known Carcinogen, lung cancer. (IARC)
3. Public Concern*; 3 HIGH.
4. Agency/Organization Perception of Health Threat*; 3 HIGH.
5. Current Activity Level; 2 MEDIUM - Seme federal research and information
development/public education activity; little local activity.
PASSIVE SMOKING:
1. Population Potentially Exposed; 5 (>1,000,000 population)
Estimate of nonsmokers = 1,296,700; See Matrix sumaries for calculations.
2. Health Effects; 2.5 - Potential Carcinogen - lung cancer. {1937 Surgeon
General's Report)
3. Public Concern*; 2 MEDIUM.
4. Agency/Organization Perception of Health Threat*; 2 MEDIUM.
5. Current Activity Level; 2 MEDIUM - Some Federal, private business, and
other organizational activities; most local restrictions are for safety-
purposes. More activity could be done on local basis.
* Rankings for Categories (3) PubTic*Concern and (4) Agency/Org. Perception of
Health Threat were based on the experience and professional judgement of the
IAP Workgroup members.
-------
JUSTIFICATION
CHLORDANE:
1. Population Potentially Exposed; 3 {50,001 - 250,000 population)
From commercial applicator use, about 106,260 people are potentially exposed.
(See Summary sheets for calculations.) Homeowner and nonconmercial applicator
use will increase the potential population number but will not push the number
into the next Category.
2. Health Effects; 2.5 - CAG Group B2 Probable Human Carcinogen (inadequate human
evidence, sufficient animal evidence); IARC Group 3 Not a Carcinogen (inadequate
human evidence, limited animal evidence).
3. Public Concern*; 1 LOW.
4. Agency/Organization Perception of Health Threat*; 1 LOW.
5. Current Activity Level; 1 LOW - Most of activity is Federal/Maryland State
'ity
dnii
pesticide training of certified applicators required for all pesticides.
************
CHLOROFOBM;
!• Population Potentially Exposed; 5 (>1,000,000 population)
1980 Population served by a public water system in the Baltimore Study Area =
1,591,000 (88%).
2. Health Effects; 2.5 - CAG Group B2 Probable Human Carcinogen (inadequate human
evidence, sufficient animal evidence); IARC Group 2B Probable Human Carcinogen
(inadequate human evidence, sufficient animal evidence).
3. Public Concern*; 1 LOW.
4. Agency/Organization Perception of Health Threat*: 1 LOW.
5. Current Activity Level; 1 LOW - EPA is developing chloroform MCL (Maximum
Contaminant Level); Baltimore TEAM Study; Baltimore monitoring for chloroform
and brcmqform at a few pools/spas.
* Rankings for Categories (3) Public Concern and (4) Agency/Org,. „Perception of
Health Threat were based on the experience and professional" judgement of the
LAP Workgroup members.
-------
Passive Sacking; Justification for Ratings of
1. Public Education.
Appendix I5a
2/6/87
a. Cost - HIGH. A considerable amount of effort and resources would be
required by government and/or nongovernment agencies.
b. Time^rame - SHORT/COMTNUOUS. Fstablishing a public education program
could be done in less than 2 years. After it is established, it would
be an ongoing program.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal. To establish a public education program
would not require any legal effort.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of people in Maryland are nonsrookers
(71%). See the Passive Smoking Background Document.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. Little or no political implications.
f. Other Considerations - Agencies must be able and available to respond to
inquiries.
2. Smoking Policies in Government and Nongovernment Buildings.
a^Cost -ICW.Would require little or no expenditure of resources.
b. Timeframe - SHORT. Once the jurisdiction has committed to smoking
policies, the policies can be established and implemented very quickly
(e.g., Executive Order).
c. Legal Considerations - MEDIUM. May involve union contract negotiations.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of people in Maryland are nonsmckers.
See the Passive Smoking Background Document for smoking policies presently
in place in government agencies.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. Little or no political sensitivity.
f. Other Considerations - Expect a vocal minority to object to smoking
policies.
Increased Qif<
nent of Building Codes and Standards/Existing Smoking
Regulations.
a. Cost - HIGH. Agencies must dedicate increased numbers of personnel
to raise level of enforcement.
"h. Tameframe - SHORT/COWTINUCUS. The enforcement program is an established
program. To increase the level of effort within that enforcement program
could be done in less than 2 years. Once the increased level of enforcement
was in place, this would be an ongoing effort.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal. This would involve enforcing existing
regulations.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of people in Maryland are nonsmokers.
See Passive Smoking Background Document for description of existing
snoking regulations.
-------
Passive Smoking -2-
Political Sensitivity -
budget requirements.
MEDIUM. Moderately sensitive issue due to increased
4.
^. Other Considerations - Expect a vocal minority concerning the passive
smoking issue.
Passage of New State or Local Laws on Smoking Restrictions.
a. Cost - HIGH. Long-term effort to overcome political and legal
considerations could be expected to lead to significant costs.
H. Time^rarne - LONS. Efforts in the last 5 years have been unsuccessful
and met with considerable resistance and opposition. Gaining and
generating support for passage will likely take many more years.
Approach is being changed to generate efforts on a local level (rather
than on the state level).
c. Legal Considerations - HIGH. Requires new legislation on state or local level.
d.
e.
f.
Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of people in Maryland are nonsmdkers
(71%). See the Passive Shaking Background Document for a description of
present restrictions/prohibitions in public places.
Political Sensitivity - HIGH. Very sensitive issue due to opposition
from strong tobacco lobby in Maryland.
Other Considerations - Difficult enforcement of restrictions; expect a
vocal minority.
5.
Smoking Cessation (Clinics, Self-Help Sessions, etc.).
a. Cost - LOW. A low cost to organizations to sponsor cessation activities
due to their commitments to weilness programs. TTie cost to individuals
ranges from $35 - $450/person. Employee may lose some working hours if
he/she goes to the clinic during working hours; however, ultimately
employee absenteeism and sicktime would decrease, thus further reducing
the cost.
For the American Lung Association population, it has been shown that
57% of people are able to stop smdking at the end of a smdking clinic;
one year after a smdking clinic, 36% of people have stopped smoking.
b. Timeframe - SHOOT. Most of the sessions to quit smoking are short-term.
Cessation clinics oenerally run 5-7 weeks. Hypnosis may consist of
1-3 sessions. Employee turnover would ultimately make this a continuous
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of people in Maryland are nonsnckers.
In addition, smokers (who would like to quit) would be favorable of this
program.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. No political implications.
f. Other Considerations -
-------
Passive Stacking -3-
6. Health Insurance to Cover Cessation Methods (Clinicsi Self-Help Sessions, etc.)
a. Oast - MEDIUM. Costs would be increased for agencies/companies with SORB
slight increase for individuals. Some Jnsvirance companies do provide
discounts to individuals (that do not strike) and ccnpanies (with smoking
policies in place).
b. Timeframe - MEDIUM. Timeframe is difficult to estinate, but could take
2-5 years to establish (if not longer).
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal.
*. Acceptability - MEDIUM. This option would be very acceptable
if the employer bears the full cost; it would be less aceptable if costs
were scared by employer/employee.
e. Political Sensitivity - MEDIUM. Government agencies that implement this
program would require increased budget for their agencies.
f. Other Considerations - In the event, that insurance companies would not
cover cessation methods voluntarily, legislation would be necessary to
mandate coverage by the insurance company.
7. Increased Excise Tax to Support Smoking Cessation Activities'.
a. Cost - LCW. Majority of population in Maryland are nonsmokers and would
be unaffected by the tax. This program would require minimal effort
and resources by government agencies and other organizations.
b. Timeframe - MEDIUM. This "program-could he done in 3 - 5 years.
c. Legal Considerations - HIGH. This effort would require new legislation.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority "of people in Maryland are nonsmokers.
e. Political Sensitivity - HIGH. Raising taxes is a highly sensitive issue.
f. Other Considerations •>- More effective with young people. See the Passive
Smoking Background Document, Section III.C. for a discussion of Excise Tax
effects.
-------
-------
Radon; Justification for Ratings of Potential Programs. Appendix #5b
2/11/87
1. Public Education.
a. Cost - HIGH. Considerable amount of effort and resources would be
required by government and/or nongovernment agencies.
b. Timeframe - SHOOT/CONTINUOUS. To establish a public education program
would take less than 2 years. After the program has been established,
it would be an ongoing program.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. The entire Maryland population may be potentially
exposed.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. Little or no political implications.
f. Other Considerations - Education would include both awareness of potential
problem and mitigation where problems are found. It would also require
agencies to respond to inquiries.
2. Education of Elected and Government Officials.
a. Cost - LOW. Training/seminars are not expensive, less than $100/person.
b. Timeframe - SHORT. Time needed for training would <2 years, Many current
seminars are available. See the Radon Background Information Document for
activities available.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Acceptable by all groups.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. No political implications.
f. Other Considerations - Educating elected and government officials may
result in resource support of studies, surveys, and/or public education.
3. state or LocalFunded Survey of Homes.
a. Cost - HIGH. Statewide survey could cost between $750,000 - $1,000,000.
Local survey would cost less.
b. Timeframe - MEDIUM. Survey would take 2-3 years.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of popultion would be very interested in
the results; participation would be voluntary.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. No political implications.
f. Other Considerations - Must obtain cooperative release of test results
from citizens and deal with the issue of confidentiality of the data.
-------
Radon -2-
4. State or Local Funded Testing in Schools.
a. Oost - MEDIUM. Agencies most ocmiat time and resources to establish
and run the program.
b. Timeframe - SHORT. Survey would take <2 years.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal. Public done in.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Constituencies would be interested in the results
because of the health implications to children.
e. Political Sensitivity - MEDIUM. This could be a potentially sensitive
issue, if a problem is found in the schools, because people will want
the government to mitigate the problem (which takes money, etc.).
This issue is similar to the asbestos issue (asbestos in schools).
f. other Considerations -
5. Free Radon Testing for Citizens.
a~iCost - HIGH. Testing devices, analyses, etc. would be costly. The cost
would range from $25 - $50/house, depending on the number and type of
monitors.
b. Timeframe - SHORT. Once the resurces are committed, implementation of
the program would take <2 years. Program would then be ongoing.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal, Given that this would be a voluntary
program, a release or cooperative agreement would be needed. May
still have liability for inaccurate results.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. This would be a 'no cost service1.
e. Political Sensitivity LOW. There are very little implications when
providing free testing for citizens (voluntary).
f. Other Considerations - Confidentiality of data issue; agencies must be
prepared to follow up testing with information and advice on mitigation.
Infrastructure must be in place for agencies/organizations to be responsive
to problem houses quickly so that demand and public reaction do not build
up to cause panic.
6. Epidemiological Study.
a. Cost - HIGH, this would require a great deal of effort and resources.
b. Timeframe - LONG. 3+ years.
c. Legal Considerations - Minimal.
d. Acceptability - HIGH. Majority of people would be interested in the
results.
e. Political Sensitivity - LOW. No political implications. Some people
may question spending this large amount of money for limited usefulness.
f. Other Considerations - An epidemiological study would indicate the extent
of adverse health effects from radon in the area.
-------
00
8
f
•58
* I
tj ^j
Q ^
0 ^
*y iH
C Q
o5
CO
3?
3 $
g •£
CM Q<
I
8
"p
^H
^&'cJ
^—1
fi
55
S*^j
•p-t
14
p^ CQ
w
o
U
fi
g5
U flj O CO 3
g^ S^g
5
3
•-I
fi
g
•ft
(D
-------
CS
•r4
-g
&
a
ffl
I
M
ff
i-t
fi
Si
fi «
O *H
•H IJ
4J 4J
JS8
^ ^
a -
3
o
B
3
r-H
2
0)
5
6
•H -i-t
I
EL.
•H 03
05
-------
4J
(0
(0
0)
10
0)
I
^H
r-l
£
£
3
2
ti
I
u>
s
s
0)
8
-------
* 00
X iH
•H 1-1
&
?
85
M PU
. o *>
435
01
1
IP
W fc*
SI
—| C to
4> 0 -i-f
•P 5> O
(0 -H
i'SJu
«S J8 o
CO
<4-i
n
•H
^n *^ 0
^0 4J C V4
X
fi
I
§!?
IX
*U.S. Oovernment Printing Office : 1988 -S16-002/S0038
-------
'•'• «1 !'•.-; -, ,
"• • ..,"•'* ' *,:';
"'**.-...'
• • * *. »
""• •-'' • ••>!.<: .:•
-------
U.S.
Environmental Protection
8404 PM-21L-A
••• Room
V street,
S.fl.
DO 20400
-------
r
-------
-------