Comparison of Risk Assessment for Radioactive and Chemical Contaminants Similarities, Differences and Scope for Comparison BRMF/SAFESPUR Workshop, 30 September.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Consumer Exposure Assessment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: A ccomplishments and Opportunities for Global Collaboration Thomas Brennan.
Advertisements

Radiation Safety Course: Biological Effects
Revisiting the Formula CTL Workgroup Contaminated Media Forum 1.
EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Projections for the U.S. Population Michael Boyd Radiation Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2011 OAS.
The Role of Background Soil Levels in Risk Assessment Teresa S. Bowers Presented at USGS/NRCS Soil Geochemistry Workshop March 4, 2003.
RADIATION PROTECTION PRINCIPLES
PROTECTFP PROTECT: First Proposed Levels for Environmental Protection against Radioactive Substances Definitions, Derivation Methods to Determine.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
Perspectives on USNRC Study Request Nuclear & Radiation Studies Board April 26, 2010 Ralph Andersen, CHP Senior Director – Radiation Safety & Environmental.
Risk Assessment.
1 Risk assessment: overview and principles –Risk principles –Steps in risk assessment –Risk calculation –Toxicology.
PROTECTFP Work Package 1:- results from questionnaire and overview of tools for chemical assessment.
The UK Approach - the Initial Radiological Assessment Methodology Laura Newsome Scientist – Environment Agency September 2009.
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.
Module 8: Risk Assessment. 2 Module Objectives  Define the purpose of Superfund risk assessment  Define the four components of the human health risk.
Your head on a block-Part 2A decisions Dr Naomi Earl Associate Director Head of Human Health Risk Assessment Land Quality Atkins Limited
Exposure Assessment Thanks to Marc Rigas, PhD for an earlier version of this lecture Much of the materials is drawn from Paustenbach, DJ. (2000) The practice.
11 April th International High-Energy Physics Technical Safety Forum 1 Radiation Protection and Safety in High-Energy Physics Kenneth R. Kase, Ph.D.
Risk Assessment II Dec 9, Is there a “safe” dose ? For effects other than cancer:
Alexander Brandl ERHS 630 Effective and Committed Effective Dose Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences.
Responding to Soil Contamination in the Moanataiari Subdivision And when the NES does and does not apply May 2012.
30 September 2008BRMF & SAFESPUR, Radioactive v Non-Radioactive Contamination 1 Regulatory Framework for Contaminated Land on Nuclear and Other Radioactively.
Maximum Permissible Dose (MPD)
1 What Is Ionizing Radiation ?. 2 Electromagnetic Spectrum.
1 Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessments Larry Tannenbaum, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM)
Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) Approach to Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens David H. Phillips* COC Chairman Descriptive vs. Quantitative.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to human health.
Arsenic in the Soils, USGS.
TRAINING FOR THE HEALTH SECTOR
PROTECTFP Derivation of Environmental Radiological Protection Benchmarks an overview
Michael J. Sullivan, Ph.D., CIH, REA
Approaches for Evaluating the Relevance of Multiroute Exposures in Establishing Guideline Values for Drinking Water Contaminants Kannan Krishnan, Université.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 John Vandenberg Associate Director for Health National Center for Environmental Assessment.
Risk Assessment Nov 7, 2008 Timbrell 3 rd Edn pp Casarett & Doull 7 th Edn Chapter 7 (pp )
Draft Policy for Assessing & Managing Contaminants in soil: a progress report WMINZ Conference, 15 October 2009 James Court and Howard Ellis Ministry for.
PROTECTFP PROTECT recommendations – application in practice.
Intervention for Chronic and Emergency Exposure Situations Assessment and Response during Radiological Emergency Dose Assessment Overview Lecture IAEA.
Intervention for Chronic and Emergency Exposure Situations General Principles and Types of Events Prolonged (Chronic) Radiation Exposure Lecture IAEA Post.
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Stochastic Somatic Effects Radiation risk Lecture IAEA Post Graduate Educational Course Radiation Protection and.
Determining Risks to Background Arsenic Using a Margin – of – Exposure Approach Presentation at Society of Risk Analysis, New England Chapter Barbara D.
Use of Effective Dose as an RDRC Study Limit
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Regulations Part III: Radiation Protection Performance Requirements Day 8 – Lecture 5(3)
RADIATION PROTECTION IN RADIOTHERAPY
International Atomic Energy Agency Regulatory Review of Safety Cases for Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities David G Bennett 7 April 2014.
International Atomic Energy Agency IX.4.2. Principles of radioactive waste management Basic technical management solutions: concentrate and contain, storage.
Organization and Implementation of a National Regulatory Program for the Control of Radiation Sources Technical Services.
Welcome Descriptive vs. Quantitative Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens 2 nd April 2009.
Health risk assessment – systemic effects (1) REMINDER OF INHALED DOSE PO intake is 7.2 mg/day 0.12 mg/kg bw/day for a 60-kg adult 2.
PROTECTFP Recommendations of Work Package 1 David Copplestone.
THE RADIATION SAFETY IN A “DAILY LIFE” Introduction Volodymyr Berkovskyy.
Key Concepts on Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
Technical Services. Objectives To identify the technical services needed within the infrastructure for an effective implementation of regulatory programme.
DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
1 Nicolas Varmenot, PhD - PCR Medical Physicist – ICO René Gauducheau Head of risks prevention and of radioprotection – Cyclotron ARRONAX
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Revision of the International Basic Safety Standards - BSS Status Report - Renate Czarwinski & Pascal Deboodt.
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
Radiological Analysis of Ground Water
UK implementation of the BSS Directive
Risk Assessment Dec 4 -6, 2006.
Update on New Federal Guidance for Dose and Risk Assessment
For healthcare professionals
Risk Assessment Dec 7, 2009 Timbrell 3rd Edn pp 16-21
Principles of Radiation Protection
Arsenic in the Soils, USGS
ICRP Views on Radiation Risk at Low Doses through the Lens of Fukushima Applicability of Radiation-Response Models to Low Dose Protection Standards Tri-Cities,
F. Schartmann, S. Thierfeldt Brenk Systemplanung GmbH, Aachen
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Risk Assessment for Radioactive and Chemical Contaminants Similarities, Differences and Scope for Comparison BRMF/SAFESPUR Workshop, 30 September 2008 Dr James Wilson, Quintessa, Ltd.

2 Structure of this Presentation Exposure and Response –Pathways, mechanisms and responses Comparison of criteria for the protection of human health for radionuclides and non-radioactive contaminants in soil Comparison of exposure assessment tools for radiological and non-radiological soil contamination An example of rad vs non-rad contamination assessment

3 Exposure Pathways Similarities… Low concentrations Intake (ingestion, inhalation) Differences… Irradiation at distance Hypersensitisation

4 Exposure-Response: Radionuclides Most evidence from A-bombs Same mechanism for all radionuclides –Direct ionisation or free radicals Depends on intensity, duration, organs –Deterministic: threshold –Stochastic: non-threshold Important uncertainties remain –Progression from damage to cancer –Response at low dose rates –Extrapolation from animals

5 Exposure-Response: Chemicals Observations are key (animal experiments, human epidemiology, occupational exposures) Threshold and non-threshold effects Uncertainties include: –Extrapolation from animal experiments –Exposure route extrapolation and bio-availability –Inter and intra-species variability

6 Dose Criteria: Radionuclides Recommendations of ICRP Dose proportional to absorbed energy Weightings: type of radiation, organ Risk proportional to dose (< thresholds) Standards and Criteria (IAEA, Euratom) –Risks and thresholds –Can be compared with natural background –Independent of particular radionuclides –UK legislation reflects ICRP recommendations

Radiation Dose Criteria for Contaminated Land HPA (2006): Annual dose approaching 10 mSv justifies intervention (considers ICRP recommendations) HPA: health criteria for determination = 3 mSv yr -1 (to protect from non-threshold effects, lifetime cancer risk of ~1/100) - or annual equivalent dose to lens of eye > 15 mSv or annual equivalent dose to skin > 50 mSv Dose criteria apply to incremental dose from contamination (i.e. total dose – background), average UK background dose is ~2.2 mSv yr -1 therefore additional dose of 3 mSv yr -1 is increase between 2 and 3 times UK annual average. 7

8 Health Criteria Values for Chemicals- threshold effects Defra/Environment Agency CLR Toxicological reports Assess international and other national guidance (e.g. WHO) HCV = ‘Tolerable Daily Soil Intake’ (TDSI) –TDI (from all sources) identified from NOAELs (or LOAELs) often from animal experiments - multiplied by uncertainty factor(s) e.g. 10 for interspecies and 10 for intra-species variation –Mean Daily Intake (MDI) set by considering other (non-soil) routes of exposure –TDSI = TDI - MDI –Old approach: If MDI > 80% TDI, then TDSI = 20% TDI. –New approach: If MDI < 50% TDI, then TDSI = TDI-MDI If MDI ≥ TDI, TDSI = 50% TDI

Setting a LOAEL from animal data 9

Health Criteria Values for Chemicals- non threshold effects –HCV = ‘ Index Dose’ (ID) –ID is daily intake that represents a very low to negligible risk to human health (i.e. set to be protective) –Provision that all exposures (inc. soil) should be ALARP, therefore intakes from sources other than soil not included –In UK not directly based on a fixed level of risk (issue of animal to human extrapolation for quantitative risk assessment) –Excess lifetime cancer risks generally ~1/ to 1/ depending on substance and exposure route –Possible future use of Benchmark Dose (BMD) data? 10

11

Soil Assessment Criteria: Chemicals Soil Guideline Values / Site Specific Assessment Criteria SGVs are concentrations of contaminant in soil such that Health Criteria Values should not be exceeded (based on CLEA exposure model assumptions) Generic non-statutory guidance Difficulties reported by Local Authorities in use of SGVs for determination under Part IIA of the EPA (1990), and uncertainty in how great HCV has to be exceeded to represent ‘significant possibility of significant harm’ – triggered ‘Way Forward’ consultation (Defra) 12

Non-threshold risk: Chemical vs. Radiation Chemicals: -Index Dose not set at specific risk - excess lifetime cancer risks generally range from ~1/ to (ID oral for As ~1/1000) -UK Expert Medical Committee (CoC) does not endorse quantitative cancer risk models based on high-dose animal data -Non-soil intakes not considered (ALARP principle assumed to have been applied to all sources of exposure) Radiation: -UK effective dose criteria set at 3 mSv yr-1 (lifetime fatal cancer risk of ~1/100) -Background doses were considered in setting effective dose 13

14 CLEA Approach CLEA UK (now in redevelopment) and RCLEA Tiered approach Contaminant-specific guideline values Produces soil concentrations SGVs/RSGVs, or Site Specific Assessment Criteria (SSACs) Generic land-use scenarios: residential both with and without plant uptake, allotments, commerical/industrial ‘Critical receptors’

15

Differences between CLEA UK and RCLEA CLEA SGVs are contaminant specific, RCLEA allows additive effective dose to be calculated CLEA UK had 18 age groups, RCLEA has 3 (infant, adult, child) RCLEA has 2 additional exposure pathways: (1) whole body external irradiation from contamination at a distance; (2) irradiation of skin from direct contact with contaminated material Adsorption through skin not applicable in RCLEA (tritium exposure should be considered separately) RCLEA has only 1 soil type due to uncertainties in solid:liquid Kd values Volatilisation is excluded from RCLEA – considered insignificant for historic contamination 16

17 Similarities, Differences Exposure-response –Threshold and non-threshold effects –Intake pathways/other pathways –Dependence on contaminant Standards –Epidemiological/toxicological studies –Protection from threshold effects –Dependence on contaminant/pathway –Regulatory approach to non-threshold risks Assessments –Exposure pathways and groups

18 Common Basis for Comparison? Only intended to be an illustration Hypothetical site Radionuclides assessed using RCLEA Non-radionuclides assessed using CLEA UK (beta)

19 Rads vs Non-rads Example Substances include: H-3, Co- 60, Sr-90, Ra-226, As, Cd. Ingestion, inhalation, ext. irradiation, dermal SSAC values for residential land use (with plant uptake and female infant receptor

20 Example – SSAC Values

Example – risk comparison Arsenic oral intake is 2.6 times oral Index Dose (ID oral = 0.3 μg/kgbw/day: lifetime risk of developing skin cancer ~ 1/1000, assuming 1% mortality rate of those who develop skin cancer, risk of death ~1/10 000) Cadium oral intake is 3.1 times TDSI (TDSI = 0.77 μg/kg bw/day – set to protect against kidney damage, based on studies of proteinuria in humans) Total effective radiation dose is 1.2 times criteria dose (3 mSv yr -1 lifetime fatal cancer risk of ~1/100) 21

22 Conclusions Comparisons of risk can be made Differences in risk assessment approaches are significant (especially with regard to availability of toxicological data and regulatory approaches for using cancer risk models)

References Defra/Environment Agency. (2002) Contaminants in soil: collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans (CLR 9). HPA (2006) Dose criteria for the designation of radioactively contaminated land. Report RCE-2. Defra/Environment Agency. (2002) The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model: technical basis and algorithms (CLR 10). Defra (2005) CLAN briefing note 2/05: Soil Guideline Values and the Determination of Land as Contaminated Land under Part IIA. Defra (2007) The radioactively contaminated land exposure assessment methodology - technical report (CLR 14) 23