It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Roberta L. Grant, Ph.D. Toxicology Section - Chief Engineer’s Office Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Air Pollutant Watch List (APWL) Darrell D. McCant, B.S. Chief Engineer’s Office - Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Advertisements

TRP Chapter Chapter 2.3 Environmental impacts and health risks.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment and Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Risks from Early-Life Exposures March 29, 2005 Hugh A. Barton,
Assessing Dose and Potency of Chemicals Robert Blaisdell, Ph.D, Chief Exposure Modeling Section Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
1 David Loschke18 March 2005 New Zealand Timber Preservation Council Annual Conference 2005 The Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority.
Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene 6th Edition
CONFERENCE ON “ FOOD ADDITIVES : SAFETY IN USE AND CONSUMER CONCERNS“ JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY NAIROBI, 24 JUNE 2014.
CE 510 Hazardous Waste Engineering
Michael H. Dong MPH, DrPA, PhD readings Human Exposure Assessment II (8th of 10 Lectures on Toxicologic Epidemiology)
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
Toxic New Source Review Lance Ericksen Engineering Division Manager MBUAPCD.
Sources of Uncertainty and Current Practice for Addressing Them: Toxicological Perspective David A. Bussard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The views.
Risk Assessment II Dec 9, Is there a “safe” dose ? For effects other than cancer:
FAO/WHO CODEX TRAINING PACKAGE
June 16-19, USEPA Cancer Guidelines: Mode of Carcinogenic Action 1 ICABR – Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Agricultural Sustainability, the Environment.
The EU Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) Presentation by Professor Len Levy, Cranfield University (Vice-Chair of SCOEL)
Toxicity Evaluation of Chemicals with Limited Toxicity Data Roberta L. Grant, Ph.D. Toxicology Division - Chief Engineer’s Office Texas Commission on Environmental.
TCEQ/NUATRC Air Toxics Workshop: Session V – Human Health Effects Nathan Pechacek, M.S. Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) Approach to Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens David H. Phillips* COC Chairman Descriptive vs. Quantitative.
Transportation-related Air Pollutants Health Effects and Risk Linda Tombras Smith, PhD Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Research Division October.
Risk Assessment for Air Pollution Control Permits Joel Leon, Bureau of Technical Services April 9, Presented by – ACE academy New Jersey Department.
HAZARD COMMUNICATION (HAZCOM) Environmental Health, Safety, and Risk Management Stephen F. Austin State University.
RICE Air Toxics Health Effects and Development of Standards Matt Fraser Civil and Environmental Engineering Department.
International Initiatives and the U.S. HPV Challenge Program Ken Geiser, PhD Lowell Center for Sustainable Production University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Presented to MIT Air Quality Symposium on Air Toxics August 4, 2004 Presented to MIT Air Quality Symposium on Air Toxics August 4, 2004 EPA Risk Assessment.
Chapter 15 Environmental Health, Pollution and Toxicology.
Chapter 15 Environmental Health, Pollution and Toxicology.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 John Vandenberg Associate Director for Health National Center for Environmental Assessment.
Health Hazards Instructional Goal
Risk Assessment Nov 7, 2008 Timbrell 3 rd Edn pp Casarett & Doull 7 th Edn Chapter 7 (pp )
RISK ASSESSMENT. Major Issues to be considered in designing the Study 1.- Emission Inventory What is the relative significance of the various sources.
Module 3 Risk Analysis and its Components. Risk Analysis ● WTO SPS agreement puts emphasis on sound science ● Risk analysis = integrated mechanism to.
The Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) Richard Pont, adapted for 2003 North American Pesticide Applicator Certification.
What does WHMIS mean? W Workplace H Hazardous M Materials I Information S System WHMIS is a Canada wide hazard communication system developed to provide.
CALIFORNIA proposed SAFER CONSUMER PRODUCT REGULATIONS Marjorie MartzEmerson October 24, 2012.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology University of Würzburg Germany Risk, Hazard, and Innovation.
Malaysia Update on “draft” proposal for the Environmentally Hazardous Substance (“EHS”) Notification and Registration Scheme.
SCOEL and Carcinogens Group A: Non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens; for risk low-dose assessment the linear non-threshold (LNT) model appears appropriate.
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
CALIFORNIA’S AIR TOXICS PROGRAM: IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSESS HEALTH RISK Update to the Air Resources Board July 24, 2014 California Environmental Protection.
Toxicology Update - Implementation of Revised Impacts Review Procedures Mike Coldiron, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Air Toxics Risk Assessment: Traditional versus New Approaches Mark Saperstein BP Product Stewardship Group.
Unit 3 – Environmental Chemistry.  A pollutant is any material or energy that can cause harm to a living thing.  Pollution is a change to the environment.
George M. Woodall, PhD NCEA Toxicologist Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center October 18, 2005 EPA Reference Values: Regulatory Context.
TOXICOLOGY OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS CHEMICAL PHYSICAL ERGONOMIC PSYCHOLOGIC BIOLOGIC.
HF Modeling Task Mike Williams November 19, 2013.
Air Pollution Research Group Analysis of 1999 TRI Data to Identify High Environmental Risk Areas of Ohio by Amit Joshi.
Prioritization Process and Development of the Hazard Characterization Documents Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
Case Study # 2  Problem Formulation  Inter-individual variability in cancer assessment (evaluate default from Silver Book)  Proposed Methods  Critical.
Perspective on the current state-of-knowledge of mode of action as it relates to the dose response assessment of cancer and noncancer toxicity Jennifer.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment and Information for SRP July 28, 2009 Reeder.
Purpose, Scope and Application of the GHS 1. The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) is a rational and comprehensive.
2007 Office of Risk Management Annual Conference 2007 David M. Shapiro Disaster Planning & Recovery Consultants
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
Overview of the CPSC Directorate for Health Sciences * Mary Ann Danello, Ph.D. Associate Executive Director * The views expressed in this presentation.
® ® Striving For Safety Excellence Corporate Environmental, Safety, Risk Management Hazard Communication OSHA Standard Including Globally Harmonized.
DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science (3rd ed.)
Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene 6th Edition
Objective – Be Safe in the Lab
Beyond Science and Decisions: Problem Formulation to Dose Response
International Initiatives and the U.S. HPV Challenge Program
TOXICOLOGY.
Environmental Health, Pollution and Toxicology
VICH GL 54, Studies to evaluate the safety of residues of veterinary drugs in human food: General approach to establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)
Presentation transcript:

It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Roberta L. Grant, Ph.D. Toxicology Section - Chief Engineer’s Office Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Outline Toxicity assessments  Chemicals with limited toxicity data  Chemicals with adequate toxicity data Professional judgment Interactive processes

Toxicity Assessment The basic objective of a toxicity assessment is to identify what adverse health effects a chemical causes and how the appearance of these adverse effects depends on exposure level (dose)

General Paradigm for Risk Assessment Hazard Identification Dose Response Assessment Exposure Assessment Risk Characterization U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Risk Assessment

November 2006 Guidelines to Develop Effects Screening Levels, Reference Values, and Unit Risk Factors RG-442

Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) Chemical-specific air concentrations set to protect human health and welfare.  Short-term ESLs are based on data concerning acute health effects [1-hr intermittent], odor/nuisance potential, and vegetative effects  Long-term ESLs [annual] are based on data concerning chronic non-carcinogenic and/or carcinogenic health effects and vegetative effects  This presentation will only discuss health-based ESLs

Reference Values (ReVs) and ESLs Exposure to an air concentration at or below the ReV or ESL is not likely to cause adverse health effects in the general public, including sensitive subpopulations such as :  Children  Pregnant women  Elderly  Individuals with pre-existing conditions ReVs and ESLs are screening values - not standards

ReVs and ESLs Unit Risk Factors For acute and chronic health effects with a threshold health-based ESLs = 0.3 x ReV (cumulative and aggregate) For chronic health effects without a threshold Derive a unit risk factor. Calculate a No Significant Risk Level of 1 in 100,000 excess risk

Texas Clean Air Act Section of the Texas Health and Safety Code empowers the TCEQ to regulate ambient air conditions to protect human health, general welfare, and physical property from impacts of air pollution in the ambient air. The Texas Health and Safety Code is comprehensive. ESLs are developed for as many air contaminants as possible, even for chemicals with limited toxicity data.

Tiered Approach for Chemicals with Limited Toxicity Information

Threshold of Concern Approach

Obtain LC 50 data and acute inhalation NOAELs from animal studies for 97 chemicals Categorize chemicals into different acute inhalation toxicity potency classes using LC 50 data and the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (United Nations 2005)

Threshold of Concern (TOC) Table 3-3. Threshold of Concern Approach for Determining Tier II Generic Short-Term ESLs Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) Category 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category 5 Skin IrritationCorrosiveIrritantMild Irritant Eye IrritationCauses serious eye damage Causes serious eye irritation Causes mild to moderate eye irritation d Oral LD 50 mg/kg 0 to < 5 a > 5 to < 50 a > 50 to < 300 a > 300 to < 2000 a > 2,000 a LC 50 gas ppm v 0 to < 100> 100 to < 500> 500 to < 2500> 2500 to < 5000> 5,000 LC 50 dust & mists b mg/m 3 0 to < 50> 50 to < 500> 500 to < 1000> 1000 to < 5000> 5,000 LC 50 vapors c mg/m 3 0 to < 500> 500 to < 2000 > 2000 to < 10,000> 10,000 to < 20,000> 20,000 Generic Short-Term ESL 4 µg/m 3 20 µg/m µg/m µg/m 3

Cat 3&4 =12.6 mg/m 3 Cat 5 = 104 mg/m 3 Cat 2 = 2 mg/m 3 Cat 1 = 0.4 mg/m 3 Calculate the 10th percentile of the cumulative percentage distribution of NOAELs in each category

Threshold of Concern (TOC) Divide the 10 th percentile NOAEL values by 100 to account for human variability and uncertainty of animal to human extrapolation Cat 1: 0.4 mg/m 3 / 100 = 4 ug/m 3 Cat 2: 2 mg/m 3 / 100 = 20 ug/m 3 Cat 3&4: 12.6 mg/m 3 / 100 = 125 ug/m 3 Cat 5: 104 mg/m 3 / 100 = 1000 ug/m 3 Use the LC 50 data of a chemical to categorize it into a GHS category. Use the TOC for that category as a generic ESL

Tier II Generic ESLs NOAEL to LC 50 Ratio Approach

NOAEL-to-LC 50 Ratio 10 th percentile ratio = Calculate the ratio between acute inhalation NOAELs and LC50 Calculate the 10th percentile ratio

NOAEL-to-LC 50 Ratio Divide the ratio of by 100 to account for human variability and uncertainty of animal to human extrapolation Health-Protective Ratio = LC 50 data x = generic ESL

TOC or NOAEL-to- LC 50 Ratio Approach? Both approaches use LC 50 data, although the TOC approach is generally more conservative than the NOAEL-to- LC 50 Ratio approach Use information on the chemical and a weight- of-evidence approach to decide which approach is most defensible Choose the most conservative number if there is uncertainty in the quality of the LC 50 data

Chemicals with Adequate Toxicity Data Review essential data including physical/ chemical properties and select key studies Conduct a Mode of Action (MOA) analysis (threshold or nonthreshold) (threshold or nonthreshold) Choose the appropriate dose metric Determine the Point of Departure (POD) for each key study Conduct appropriate dosimetric modeling

Chemicals with Adequate Toxicity Data Extrapolate from the adjusted POD to lower exposures based on MOA analysis and select critical effect For health effects with thresholds with thresholds For health effects without a threshold without a threshold (typically carcinogens)

THE FOUNDATION Scientific data Trained toxicologists and other scientists Accepted scientifically-based procedures and guidelines Professional judgment Public comment

The Role of Professional Judgment Judgment should be based on science and common sense Difficult pill for society to swallow Would you trust a bureaucrat to use judgment? Society as a whole Does Not! With judgment comes responsibility

Professional Judgment and Balance “We must not only get the correct result, we must do so in a manner that promotes public acceptance of the result” Vincent Cogliano International Agency for Research on Cancers 2007 Toxicology and Risk Assessment Conference

Interactive Processes Scientists Industrial hygienists and scientists – the regulated community Academic researchers Citizens and environmental groups Regulators and Risk Managers Consultants, specialists

Interactive Processes Outlined in RG-442 ESL Guidelines A Toxicity Value is Born Chemicals for which we will develop ESLs will be posted on the TCEQ website Draft Development Support Document (DSD) The draft DSD becomes a proposed DSD

Interactive Processes The Village - Public Comment Period The proposed DSDs are posted on the TCEQ website for a 60- or 90-day public comment period Public information meetings in Austin

Interactive Processes Raising the Child Public comments are received The final DSD and response to comments are posted on the TCEQ website Transparency

Interactive Processes External Scientific Peer Reviews External scientific peer reviews RG-442 ESL Guidelines did undergo external scientific peer review and public comment Occasionally, the TCEQ will conduct a peer review for an individual DSD (example: 1,3-butadiene)

Summary The TCEQ conducts toxicity assessments to develop ESLs, ReVs, and URFs. ESLs and ReVs are health-protective screening levels whereas URFs are factors used to calculate air concentrations at the No Significant Risk Level of one in 100,000 excess risk

Summary For chemicals with limited toxicity data, statistical or relative toxicity/potency approaches can be used to derive health- protective default or generic ESLs  Tier 1 – Threshold of Regulation  Tier II – Threshold of Concern and NOAEL-to-LC 50 Ratio  Tier III – Relative Toxicity/Potency Approach

Summary For chemicals with adequate toxicity data, the foundation of a sound toxicity assessment is toxicity data, scientifically- defensible procedures, professional judgment, balance, and interactive processes

Summary It takes a community of scientists and specialists as well as the regulated community and concerned citizens engaged in a dynamic interactive process to produce a publicly acceptable toxicity assessment

Questions Roberta L. Grant (512) Toxicology Section Website: ? ? ? ? ?