PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
January 5, 2002 Air Release
DIAZ CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(a/k/a FMC C/O DIAZ CHEMICAL C/O FMC)
VILLAGE OF HOLLEY, ORLEANS COUNTY, NEW YORK
Table 1. Demographic information about the Village of Holley
|
New York State |
Village of Holley | |
| Age Distribution1 | ||
| <6 | 8% | 9% |
| 6-19 | 20% | 20% |
| 20-64 | 60% | 59% |
| >64 | 13% | 12% |
|
|
||
| Percent Minority* | 38% | 5% |
|
|
||
| Ethnicity Distribution1 | ||
| Percent Hispanic | 15% | 3% |
|
|
||
| 1999 Median Income2 | $43,393 | $36,367 |
|
|
||
| % Below Poverty Level2 | 15% | 10% |
* Minority includes Hispanics, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders and American Indians.
1. US Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census of population and housing summary file 1(SF1). US Department of Commerce. 2001.
2. US Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census of population and housing summary file
Table 2. Analysis of toluene wash solution of residue remaining
in storage vessel after material release.
| Compound | Percent composition Of solution (%) |
| 2-chloro-6-fluorophenol | 55 |
| Dichlorofluorophenol^ | 21 |
| Chlorofluorophenoxymethylbenzene^ | 3 |
| Dichlorofluorophenoxymethylbenzene^ | 2 |
| (Chlorofluorophenoxy)2-H* | 10 |
| Dichlorofluorophenoxychlorofluorophenol* | 6 |
| (Chlorofluorophenoxy)3-H* | 3 |
| Dichlorofluorophenoxy(chlorofluorophenoxy)2-H* | 1 |
^The specific isomer of these compounds has not been determined.
*The exact molecular structure of these compounds has not been determined.
Table 3. Results of Dioxin and Furan Analysis
of Toluene Wash Solution of Residue Remaining in Storage Vessel after Material
Release and Calculation of Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ) Concentration.
| Detected Dioxins and Furans1 | Concentration (ng/L)2 | Dioxin Concentration/CFP Concentration3 | Maximum Amount of CFP Found in Soil (mcg/kg)4 |
Estimated Amount of Dioxin in Soil (mcg/kg)5 |
TEF6 | Estimated TEQ7 Concentration in soil (mcg/kg of Dioxin equivalents) |
| 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodioxin | 20 | 1.54E-10* | 8900 | 1.37E-6 | 0.1 | 1.37E-7 |
| 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodioxin | 40 | 3.07E-10 | 8900 | 2.73E-6 | 0.01 | 2.73E-8 |
| Octachlorodioxin | 40 | 3.07E-10 | 8900 | 2.73E-6 | 0.0001 | 2.73E-10 |
| Octachlorofuran | 20 | 1.54E-10 | 8900 | 1.37E-6 | 0.0001 | 1.37E-10 |
| Non-2,3,7,8 congener tetrachloro dioxin | 127000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non-2,3,7,8 congener pentachlorodioxin | 11000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non-2,3,7,8 congener hexachlorodioxin | 910 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non-2,3,7,8 congener heptachlorodioxin | 150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non-2,3,7,8 congener tetrachlorofuran | 240 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non-2,3,7,8 congener pentachlorofuran | 110 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total TEQ | 2.48 | 1.376E-7 |
1: The following compounds were tested for but not found at a concentration above the detection limit of either 10 or 20 nanograms per liter: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodioxin; 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodioxin; 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodioxin; 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodioxin; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorofuran; 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorofuran; 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorofuran; 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorofuran; 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorofuran; 2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorofuran; 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorofuran; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorofuran; 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorofuran; Total hexachlorofuran; and Total heptachlorofuran.
2: Concentration reported by NYSDOH laboratories at the Wadsworth Center from analysis of the wash sample as nanograms per liter (ng/L).
3: The dioxin concentration/CFP concentration is calculated by taking the dioxin concentration provided in column two and dividing it by the CFP concentration in the Storage Vessel wash reported by NYSDOH laboratories at NYSDOH laboratories at the Wadsworth Center as 130 grams per liter (130,000,000,000 ng/L).
4: The maximum amount of CFP found in soil was 8900 mcg/kg (Appendix A, Figure 5A).
5: The estimated amount of dioxin found in soil (column 5) was calculated by multiplying column 3 and column 4.
6: TEFs (toxicity equivalence factors) are from the World Health Organization (2). Because other congeners are less toxic than 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TEFs are used to estimate the 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration that would have the same toxicity as the mixture of congeners seen. TEFs above zero exist only for the 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxins and furans; other dioxins/furans that do not have 2,3,7,8 substitution do not contribute to dioxin toxicity and thus the TEF equals zero.
7: The TEQ (toxicity equivalent or dioxin equivalent) was determined by multiplying column 5 and column 6.
8 The total toxicity equivalents of the wash solution was calculated by multiplying corresponding entries in Column 2 by Column 6 and summing.
*It is sometimes convenient to express large or small numbers in scientific notation. For this table, scientific notation is expressed as E, as in 1.54E-10 (meaning 1.54 x 10-10 or 0.000000000154). The number following the E is called the "exponent," or the "power of ten." For a positive exponent, it represents the number of times the number before the E is multiplied by 10. For a positive exponent, it represents the number of times the number before the E is divided by 10. To simplify, the sign of the exponent tells which way the decimal point moves; positive exponent moves the decimal point to the right, and a negative one moves it to the left. The magnitude of the exponent tells how many positions to move.
Table 4. Summary of Urine Sampling By Round
| Number of urine samples with detectable CFP | Number of urine samples tested | Percent of samples with detectable levels of CFP | |
| Round 1 | 11 | 36 | 31% |
| Round 2 | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| Round 3 | Fewer than 6* | 25 | ** |
| Round 4 | 12 | 250 | 5% |
| Round 5 | Fewer than 6* | 10 | ** |
*To preserve confidentiality, we are unable to identify exact numbers when they are fewer than 6 (between 1 and 5).
** Percentages not shown when referring to fewer than six samples.
Table 5a. Non-cancer Toxicity Values for Chlorophenols
used as Surrogates for 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol
|
Surrogate Chemical |
Type of Adverse Effect |
NOEL(1) (mcg/kg/day) | LOEL(2) (mcg/kg/day) | Uncertainty Factor(3) | Chronic RfD (4) (mcg/kg/day) |
| 2-chlorophenol | Reproductive (increased stillborns; decrease litter size) | 5,000 | 50,000 | 1,000 | 5 |
| 2,4-dichlorophenol | Immunological (decreased hypersensitivity (delayed-type) response) | 300 | 3,000 | 100 | 3 |
| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol | Liver & kidney (slight degenerative changes) | 100,000 | 300,000 | 1,000 | 100 |
(1) No-Observed-Effect-Level
(2) Lowest-Observed-Effect-Level
(3) Uncertainty factors are used to account for the possibility that humans may be more sensitive than rats; that some individuals may be more sensitive to the chemical than others; and that longer exposures than those used in the experiment may result in effects at lower dose levels.
(4) Chronic reference dose: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious non-cancer health effects during a lifetime (USEPA Integrated Risk Information System).
Table 5b. Comparison of Maximum Estimated 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol
Exposure from Soil Ingestion to Non-cancer Oral Toxicity Values for Chlorophenols
(All values in mcg/kg/day)
| Surrogate Chemical for 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol | Maximum Estimated Exposure to 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol from Soil Ingestiona | Maximum Estimated Exposure to 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol from Soil Ingstion Plus Homegrown Vegetable Ingestionb | RfDc |
| 2-chlorophenol | 0.046 | 0.5 | 5.0 |
| 2,4-dichlorophenol | 0.046 | 0.5 | 3.0 |
| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol | 0.046 | 0.5 | 100.0 |
a Estimated exposure from soils ingestion assumes a 13.2-kg child ingests 80 milligrams of soil per day, 5 days per week, 6 months per year and 40 milligrams of indoor dust with an outdoor soil source per day, 7 days per week, 12 months per year. Based on the maximum detected 2-chloro-6-fluorophenol level of 8.9 mg/kg in soil from the January 2002 sampling (Appendix A, Figure 5a).
b Estimated exposure from soil ingestion plus vegetable ingestion is based on the same soil ingestion exposure assumptions described above and the following vegetable ingestion exposure assumptions: an estimated soil-to-plant uptake factor for CFP (based on the properties of 2-chlorophenol); assumed homegrown vegetable ingestion rates of 0.003 kg/day (leafy vegetables), 0.007 kg/day (exposed vegetables) and 0.0109 kg/day (protected vegetables); body weight of 13.2 kilograms. The estimates also are based on the maximum detected 2-chloro-6-fluorophenol level of 0.86 mg/kg in soil from the June 2002 sampling (Appendix A, Figure 5b).
c Reference Dose: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious non-cancer health effects during a lifetime (USEPA Integrated Risk Information System).
Table 5c. Comparison of Maximum Detected 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol
Air Concentration to Non-cancer Inhalation Comparison Values for Chlorophenols
(All values in mcg/m3)
| Surrogate Chemical For 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol | Maximum Air Level a | Non-cancer Air Comparison Valuesb |
| 2-chlorophenol | 0.9 | 18.0 |
| 2,4-dichlorophenol | 0.9 | 10.0 |
| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol | 0.9 | 350 |
a Maximum detected 2-chloro-6-fluorophenol indoor air level (Appendix A, Figure 3). Estimated exposure assuming 0.9 mcg CFP/m3, an inhalation rate of 20 m3/day and a body weight of 70 kg = 0.26 mcg/kg/day.
b The non-cancer air comparison value is an air concentration equivalent to the oral reference dose assuming a 70 kg adult inhales 20 cubic meter of air per day (reference concentrations were not available).
Table 5d. Estimated Cancer Risks Assuming 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol
(CFP) Is Carcinogenic and Equipotent to 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
|
Exposure Route |
Measure of CFP Exposure | Estimated Cancer Riska | Qualitative Descriptorb |
| Soil Ingestionc | Maximum detected CFP soil concentration from the January 2002 sampling (8.9 mg/kg) | 4 in one hundred million | very low |
| Soil Ingestion plus Consumption of Homegrown Vegetablesd | Maximum detected CFP soil concentration from June 2002 sampling (0.86 mg/kg) | 3 in ten million | very low |
| Inhalatione | Maximum detected CFP air concentration (0.9 mcg/m3) | 1 in one million | very low |
| Total Maximum Exposuref | Maximum CFP urine level (0.0006 mg/kg/d) in April 2002 | 3 in one million | low |
| Total Average Exposureg | Average detected CFP urine level (0.00009 mg/kg/d) in April 2002 | 5 in ten million | very low |
a Calculated using cancer potency estimates for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Estimated cancer risks are based on 30 years of exposure over a 70-year lifetime.
b See Appendix E
cEstimated cancer risk for soil ingestion: (Maximum detected CFP soil concentration from the January 2002 sampling/cancer soil comparison value) * 1E-6. The cancer soil comparison value is 225 mg/kg.
dEstimated cancer risk for soil ingestion plus consumption
of homegrown vegetables:
(Maximum detected CFP soil concentration from June 2002 sampling/cancer soil
comparison value) * 1E-6. The cancer soil comparison value is 2.76 mg/kg.
eEstimated cancer risk for inhalation: (Maximum detected CFP air concentration/cancer air comparison value) * 1E-6. The cancer air comparison value is 0.75 mcg/m3.
f Estimated from maximum CFP levels (mcg CFP/g creatinine) detected in urine (see Table F-1, Appendix F). Estimated cancer risk for total exposure: (Maximum CFP urine level * cancer potency factor) * 30/70. The cancer potency factor is 1.1E-2 per mg/kg/day.
gEstimated from average CFP levels (mcg CFP/g creatinine) detected in urine (see Table F-1, Appendix F). Estimated cancer risk for total exposure: (Average CFP urine level * cancer potency factor) * 30/70. The cancer potency factor is 1.1E-2 per mg/kg/day.
Table 5e. Margins of Exposure:
Comparison of Estimated 2-Chloro-6-fluorophenol Exposure
(Based on CFP Urine Levels) with Surrogate Chemical LOELs(1)
| Surrogate Chemical | LOEL (mcg/kg/day) |
Children |
Adults |
||
| Maximum Estimated Intake (mcg/kg/d) | Margin of Exposure | Maximum Estimated Intake (mcg/kg/d) | Margin of Exposure | ||
| chlorophenol | 50,000 | 3.2 | 15,625 | 4.8 | 10,417 |
| 2,4-dichlorophenol | 3,000 | 3.2 | 938 | 4.8 | 625 |
| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol | 300,000 | 3.2 | 93,750 | 4.8 | 62,500 |
(1) Lowest-Observed-Effect-Level
Table 6a. Symptom Reports for Potential
Exposure Groups in Rounds 1 and 4
(% people reporting symptoms)
| Round 1 (1/5/02 - 1/17/02) | Round 4 (5/15/02 - 5/22/02) | ||||||||
| Symptoms | Greater potential for exposure1 (n=35) |
Less potential for exposure (n=30) |
All2 (n=65) |
Greater potential
for exposure1 (n=21) |
Less potential for exposure (n=208) |
All2 (n = 229) |
|||
| Sore throat | 89% | 67% | 78% | 10% | 5% | 5% | |||
| Headache | 74% | 60% | 68% | 5% | 10% | 10% | |||
| Eye irritation | 66% | 50% | 58% | 14% | 3% | 4% | |||
| Nose irritation | 66% | 50% | 58% | 5% | 1% | 2% | |||
| Dizziness & Lightheadness | 9% | 0% | 5% | 5% | 2% | 2% | |||
| Fatigue | 3% | 0% | 2% | 5% | 1% | 1% | |||
| Skin Problems | 26% | 23% | 25% | 5% | 4% | 4% | |||
| Respiratory problems3 | 49% | 40% | 45% | 5% | 1% | 2% | |||
| Cough | 9% | 17% | 12% | 5% | 3% | 4% | |||
| Stomach complaints | 0% | 5% | 4% | ||||||
| Sinus problems | 14% | 3% | 4% | ||||||
| Difficulty breathing | 43% | 37% | 40% | ||||||
| Nausea | 37% | 40% | 38% | ||||||
| Chest pain | 20% | 27% | 23% | ||||||
| Nose bleed | 20% | 27% | 23% | ||||||
Notes
1- Greater potential for exposure includes individuals residing in the area of greater impact and in round 1 individuals with potential occupational exposure.
2 - Individuals who relocated due to the Diaz release could not be categorized and were not included in this Round 4 analysis, as their exposure to the area of greater impact varied. Individuals who resided in the area of greater impact and relocated due to the Diaz release were included in the Round 1 analysis, as that survey collected symptom reports on the January 5th release and the days immediately following.
3 - Respiratory problems include reports of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, asthma exacerbation, bronchitis, wheezing, respiratory arrest, respiratory secretions, chest tightness upon breathing, upper respiratory tract infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Table 6b. Statistical Analysis of Differences
in Symptom Reports between Potential Exposure Groups in Rounds 1 and 4
| Round 1 (1/5/02 - 1/17/02) |
Round 4 (5/15/02 - 5/22/02) |
||||||||
| Comparing greater potential exposure group1 to less potential exposure group | |||||||||
| Symptoms | Relative Risk of Reporting Symptom | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value | Relative Risk of Reporting Symptom | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value | |||
| Sore throat | 1.33 | (1.00<RR<1.76) | 0.03* | 1.98 | (.46<RR<8.45) | 0.30 | |||
| Headache | 1.24 | (.87<RR<1.76) | 0.22 | 0.47 | (.07<RR<3.33) | 0.37 | |||
| Eye irritation | 1.31 | (.85<RR<2.02) | 0.20 | 4.24 | (1.19<RR<15.20) | 0.05* | |||
| Nose irritation | 1.31 | (.85<RR<2.02) | 0.20 | 3.30 | (.36<RR<30.35) | 0.32 | |||
| Dizziness & Lightheadness | N/A | 2.48 | (.29<RR<21.14) | 0.38 | |||||
| Fatigue | N/A | 4.95 | (.47<RR<52.35) | 0.25 | |||||
| Skin Problems | 1.21 | (.51<RR<2.83) | 0.67 | 1.24 | (.16<RR<9.43) | 0.59 | |||
| Respiratory problems2 | 1.21 | (.70<RR<2.12) | 0.49 | 2.20 | (.51<RR<9.53) | 0.27 | |||
| Cough | 0.51 | (.13<RR<1.98) | 0.27 | 1.41 | (.18<RR<10.96) | 0.54 | |||
| Stomach complaints | N/A | ||||||||
| Sinus problems | 4.95 | (1.33<RR<18.38) | 0.04* | ||||||
| Difficulty breathing | 1.17 | (.64<RR<2.14) | 0.61 | ||||||
| Nausea | 0.93 | (.50<RR<1.72) | 0.81 | ||||||
| Chest pain | 0.75 | (.31<RR<1.83) | 0.52 | ||||||
| Nose bleed | 0.75 | (.31<RR<1.83) | 0.52 | ||||||
Notes
* - Indicates that p-value is significant at or below .05 level
1 - Greater potential for exposure includes individuals residing in the area of greater impact and in round 1 individuals with potential occupational exposure.
2 - Respiratory problems include reports of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, asthma exacerbation, bronchitis, wheezing, respiratory arrest, respiratory secretions, chest tightness upon breathing, upper respiratory tract infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
N/A - This relative risk comparison is not applicable and can not be calculated due to a zero value.
Table 6c. Symptoms Reports and CFP Urine
Test Results in Rounds 1 and 4
(% people reporting symptoms)
| Round 1 (1/5/02 - 1/17/02) | Round 4 (5/15/02 - 5/22/02) | |||||
| Symptoms | Detectable level of CFP (n=11) |
Non-detectable level of CFP (n=24) |
All tested (n=35) |
Detectable level of CFP (n=12) |
Non-detectable level of CFP (n=232) |
All tested (n=244) |
| Sore throat | 82% | 88% | 86% | 0% | 7% | 6% |
| Headache | 64% | 79% | 74% | 0% | 10% | 9% |
| Eye irritation | 71% | 73% | 71% | 25% | 5% | 6% |
| Nose irritation | 64% | 67% | 66% | 0% | 2% | 3% |
| Dizziness & Lightheaded | 9% | 8% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 3% |
| Fatigue | 0% | 4% | 3% | 8% | 1% | 2% |
| Skin Problems | 27% | 25% | 26% | 0% | 5% | 4% |
| Respiratory problems1 | 45% | 63% | 57% | 8% | 2% | 2% |
| Cough | 0% | 17% | 11% | 0% | 4% | 3% |
| Stomach complaints | 8% | 4% | 4% | |||
| Sinus problems | 8% | 4% | 4% | |||
| Difficulty breathing | 45% | 50% | 49% | |||
| Nausea | 36% | 54% | 49% | |||
| Chest pain | 18% | 38% | 31% | |||
| Nose bleed | 18% | 33% | 29% | |||
Notes
1 - Respiratory problems include reports of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, asthma exacerbation, bronchitis, wheezing, respiratory arrest, respiratory secretions, chest tightness upon breathing, upper respiratory tract infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Table 6d. Statistical Analysis of Differences
in Symptom Reports between those with and without Detectable Levels of CFP in
Rounds 1 and 4
| Round 1 (1/5/02 - 1/17/02) | Round 4 (5/15/02 - 5/22/02) | ||||||||||
| Comparing people with detectable levels of CFP to people without detectable levels of CFP | |||||||||||
| Symptoms | Relative Risk of Reporting Symptom | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value | Relative Risk of Reporting Symptom | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value | |||||
| Sore throat | 0.94 | (.68<RR<1.28) | 0.51 | N/A | |||||||
| Headache | 0.80 | (.49<RR<1.31) | 0.28 | N/A | |||||||
| Eye irritation | 1.03 | (.66<RR<1.60) | 0.62 | 5.27 | (1.69<RR<16.44) | 0.02* | |||||
| Nose irritation | 0.95 | (.56<RR<1.62) | 0.58 | N/A | |||||||
| Dizziness & Lightheadness | 1.09 | (.11<RR<10.79) | 0.69 | 3.87 | (.49<RR<30.56) | 0.26 | |||||
| Fatigue | N/A | 6.44 | (.72<RR<57.44) | 0.18 | |||||||
| Skin Problems | 1.09 | (.33<RR<3.58) | 0.60 | N/A | |||||||
| Respiratory problems1 | 0.73 | (.35<RR<1.49) | 0.28 | 0.55 | (.07<RR<14.33) | 0.49 | |||||
| Cough | N/A | N/A | |||||||||
| Stomach complaints | 2.15 | (.30<RR<15.60) | 0.40 | ||||||||
| Sinus problems | 2.15 | (.30<RR<15.60) | 0.40 | ||||||||
| Difficulty breathing | 0.91 | (.42<RR<1.95) | 0.81 | ||||||||
| Nausea | 0.67 | (.28<RR<1.59) | 0.33 | ||||||||
| Chest pain | 0.48 | (.12<RR<1.88) | 0.23 | ||||||||
| Nose bleed | 0.55 | (.14<RR<2.16) | 0.30 | ||||||||
Notes
* - Indicates that p-value is significant at or below .05 level
1 - Respiratory problems include reports of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, asthma exacerbation, bronchitis, wheezing, respiratory arrest, respiratory secretions, chest tightness upon breathing, upper respiratory tract infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
N/A - This relative risk comparison is not applicable and can not be calculated due to a zero value.
2 Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, A.T.; Brunstrom, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J.P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S.W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J.C.; Van Leeuwen, F.X.; Liem, A.K.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R.E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Waern, F.; Zacharewski, T. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environ Health Perspect. 106(12): 775-792.
