|
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY TRINITY AMERICAN CORP., GLENOLA
INDUSTRIAL DRIVE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
October 20, 1997
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment
and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
is issuing this public health advisory to notify the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health; the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources; the Randolph
County Health Department; and the public of the Glenola community
in Randolph County of ATSDR's concerns regarding potential
adverse impacts on the health of residents living near the
Trinity American Corp. (TAC) facility on Glenola Industrial
Drive in Randolph County, North Carolina. TAC is the parent
company of Trinity Foam of Carolina, Inc. and Trinity Fibers
of Carolina, Inc.
|
|
| |
The
Polyurethane Foam Association's Critique
|
|
In the interest of accuracy and fairness, the Polyurethane
Foam Association asked a number of experts for comments on
the Public Health Advisory for Trinity American Corporation.
The following is a compilation of the experts' comments.
|
|
Data and information obtained and reviewed
by ATSDR strongly suggest that hazardous substances are being
released into the air and possibly into other environmental
media as a result of operations at the TAC facility, and that
these hazardous substances are impacting residential areas
at levels that may pose a significant risk to human health.
Furthermore, ATSDR believes that substantial releases of
hazardous substances into the environment have occurred in
the past and that environmental media other than air may have
been contaminated.
|
|
The ATSDR states that data "strongly suggests" that hazardous
substances are being released into the air and "possibly into"
other environmental media, and they "may pose" significant
risk to human health. The three phrases are not scientific.
Does this agency deal with facts and data or speculation?
Does the data indicate hazardous substances are being released
or not? What does "possibly into other environmental media"
mean? Are these substances posing a significant risk to health
or not?
|
|
ATSDR is concerned that residents are
being exposed to toxic substances such as 2,4- and 2,6-toluene
diisocyanate (TDI) and other isocyanates known to exacerbate
or cause obstructive airway disorders and sensitization reactions.
ATSDR is also concerned that residents are being exposed
to other air contaminants that have been measured at levels
of health and safety concern but have not been identified.
|
|
Until the contaminants are identified, they cannot be measured
at levels of health and safety hazards, nor can the source
be determined.
|
|
During plant operations, the local
residents report intermittently experiencing headaches, dizziness,
rashes, throat irritation, and chest tightness that are temporally
correlated with the detection of odors and elevated levels
of unidentified substances measured in off-site air.
|
|
Unidentified substances measured at elevated levels "not
quantified" are the cause of all the ailments?
|
|
ATSDR and other agencies are concerned
about chemical exposures of workers within the TAC facility
as well as exposures of local residents.
|
|
This is also a primary concern of PFA, and we encourage a
thorough scientific investigation of the situation and careful
examination of the plant workers and neighbors by specialized
physicians and toxicologists familiar with the specific chemicals
being used at the Trinity foam plant.
|
|
ATSDR issues a public health advisory for sites to human
health where a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances may pose a serious threat
. The agency uses the following criteria to determine
the need for an advisory:
- Hazardous materials on a site are known to be toxic to
human health, or physical conditions exist that may pose
a serious threat to public health.
- An established or plausible exposure pathway exists between
the contaminant and the nearby human population.
- People are being or could be exposed to hazardous substances
at levels that pose either an urgent public health hazard
or a public health hazard.
- There are no plans for immediate remediation or removal.
- The public health advisory is ATSDR's best option for
ensuring a rapid response to safeguard public health.
INTRODUCTION
This public health advisory is to notify the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH); the State of North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); the Randolph
County Health Department; and the public of the Glenola community
within Randolph County of an ongoing public health hazard.
The public health hazard is associated with the past, current,
and potential future exposures to hazardous air pollutants
emitted from the Trinity American Corp.
(TAC) foam and fiber facility on Glenola Industrial Drive
in Randolph County. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) is issuing this public health advisory in
response to requests for assistance from the DENR, the Randolph
County Health Department, and the Glenola community.
|
|
The meaning is not understood. The
criteria to determine the need for an advisory are ambiguous,
and not quantifiable. Essentially it appears an advisory can
be issued based on spurious uninvestigated or unproven complaints.
|
|
ATSDR has concluded that the presence
of hazardous substances in the community's ambient
air warrants this public health advisory [1,
2, 3].
|
|
The results of the detection and
monitoring activity to support this conclusion have not been
released to the knowledge of the PFA. |
|
Unidentified volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and semi-VOCs have been detected in the air and are
assumed to be at levels of public health and safety concern
[4].
|
|
PFA is not familiar with substance
categories "unidentified VOCs" and "semi-VOCs."
What is the basis of the assumption? Should an assumption without
a factual basis serve as evidence for a public health advisory?
|
|
Compounds such as isocyanates; methylene chloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane;
acetone; benzene; ethylene oxide;
formaldehyde; and other VOCs have been
identified in the ambient air at levels that may pose
a serious threat to public health [3, 5].
The National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300.400-420) describes
the types of activities required and authorized in response
to a hazardous substance release at a potentially hazardous
site. Activities include notification of a release (Section
300.405(f)(1)); evaluation of the site (Section 300.410);
and factors to be considered related to a removal action (Section
300.415). These factors include the migration of contaminants,
the threat of fire or explosion, and other events that could
threaten public health.
Based on the review of the available information, ATSDR recommends
the use of statutory, regulatory, or administrative authorities
as appropriate to protect the public's health and to characterize
these exposures further. Specifically, ATSDR recommends that
appropriate agencies take the following actions:
|
|
Here VOCs are identified. The report
states above that the VOCs are "unidentified." If they are truly
identified, which VOC compounds were found and at what levels
of concentration?
Furthermore, it is essentially impossible for acetone to be
detected in the ambient air at "levels that may pose a serious
threat to public health." |
1. Use their statutory, regulatory,
or administrative authorities to implement measures that
will immediately reduce or eliminate opportunities for residential
exposures to hazardous substances emitted from the TAC facility.
2. Conduct environmental sampling as appropriate (air,
private well water, surface water, surface soil, and biota)
to facilitate qualitative and quantitative estimates of
residential exposures under a variety of scenarios.
|
|
TAC advised PFA that carbon scrubbers
were installed after the ATSDR/EPA monitoring activity and prior
to the release of the October 20, 1997, Public Health Advisory.
Scrubbers would substantially reduce stack emissions. |
3. Investigate the TAC facility and
interview employees to assess occupational exposures.
4. Provide local health care providers and public health
officials with necessary information on the diagnoses and
treatment of symptoms and health effects associated with
environmental exposures to the specific chemicals and classes
of chemicals identified.
|
|
TAC advises that it operates under
the exposure limits established by OSHA. |
5. Conduct biomedical testing (analyses of blood) for biomarkers
of exposure to TDI and other isocyanates among residents
and TAC employees.
6. Consider conducting studies (including biomarkers of
effect) for the prevalence of various chemical exposure-related
health effects among residents and TAC employees.
BACKGROUND
Site Location and History
In 1981, the TAC facility began operations at 5275 Glenola
Industrial Drive in the unincorporated community of Glenola,
Randolph County, North Carolina [6]. The
site consists of 15.7 acres used for the production of fiber
padding and the production and fabrication of foam for the
bedding and furniture industries. Four primary operations
occupy the site: a fiber production facility, a polyurethane
foam production facility, a warehouse, and a tenant's business
(Guilford Fabricators). Thomasville Products (foam manufacturer)
owned the property from 1973 to 1981. The site was undeveloped
before that time [6].
|
|
A number of physicians who specialize
in worker exposure to isocyanates question whether reliable
biomarkers exist. |
|
Processes at the Foam Facility
Polyurethane foam is manufactured by reacting a resin, typically
a polyether such as polyoxypropylenetriol, with TDI and water.
Small quantities of an emulsifying agent, a polymerization
catalyst, and a silicone lubricant are also added [7].
For certain higher quality grades of foam, methylene chloride
(MeCl) is used as a blowing agent [7].
|
|
Although not critical to the conclusions
offered, the process described is inaccurate and not representative
of the systems and chemistry employed at TAC. |
|
For fire retardant foam, a tin catalyst
is added.
The ingredients are mixed and deposited onto a moving conveyor,
and the polyoxypropylenetriol resin and the TDI polymerize
and cross-link to form the urethane resin in the shape of
a continuous foam-like structure called a loaf [7].
The loaf dries in a cooling chamber, where exhaust fans draw
off chemical emissions for 20 to 30 minutes. These emissions
peak during the first 2 minutes of the blow-off, when pressure
inside the foam bubbles exceeds the pressure outside [7].
The foam continues to off-gas rapidly for the next 5 to 10
minutes [7].
|
|
Not true. |
|
After this period, off-gassing becomes diffusion controlled.
Emissions are directed to stacks, which direct them to the
ambient air; no emission controls are
in place.
The manufacturing processes at the foam facility occur in
batches which result in episodic releases of emissions.
Processes at the Fiber Facility
The TAC fiber facility processes scrap fibers in the manufacturing
of Spansadeck fiber insulator pads for the bedding and furniture
industries [5]. ATSDR is gathering data on
the specific processes and engineering controls used in this
operation.
Demographics
Glenola is an unincorporated community in Randolph County,
North Carolina. The 1990 U.S. Census listed the county population
as 115,548 people [8]; approximately 500
of these people live in Glenola. Approximately 1,650 people
live within a 1-mile radius of the TAC facility. This population
includes 162 children less than 6 years old and 120 adults
more than 65 years old [8].
Reported Heath Effects
|
|
This is not true. Scrubbers are in place.
|
|
Since June 1997, ATSDR has received
more than 200 telephone calls from residents near the TAC
facility. The residents have reported a number of symptoms,
including dizziness, breathlessness, headaches, nausea, loss
of memory, flushing of the face and neck, fatigue, lethargy,
sleeping difficulties, and difficulty breathing. They
report a significant reduction of symptoms after leaving the
area near the facility. The health effects described
during these telephone calls are similar to those described
by residents in one-on-one sessions with ATSDR staff during
a public availability session in May 1997 [9].
Personnel from the State of North Carolina Air Toxics Analytical
Support Team have been conducting air sampling near the TAC
facility since January 1995. While conducting sampling activities
near the TAC facility, these personnel have at times reported
symptoms similar to those described by the residents [10].
|
|
These statistics are imprecisely stated. Were there 200 telephone
calls by 200 different individuals or from 10 individuals
who called 20 times each? We have been unable to find out
whether the agency made a record of the names, times, and
dates of the calls. What was the operating status of TAC at
the times the calls were received?
Were these calls, in fact, from the same individuals who
attended the public availability session?
|
| |
|
|
|
Furthermore, ATSDR employees have been
conducting air sampling near the TAC facility since May 1997
and have at times reported similar symptoms and observations
of a visible plume during episodic events [11].
Environmental Monitoring
|
|
PFA has several questions concerning
this air sampling. Was there a correlation established between
"visible plume," reported complaints, and foam production operations?
The ATSDR employees were presumably close to the production
site. Employees would be much closer. Are there reports of ill
effects from TAC employees at this time? Was the plume tested
and its composition identified? |
| Environmental monitoring to date
has detected TDI, hexamethylene diisocyanate
(HDI), MeCl, and total hydrocarbons
in the community's air. ATSDR has identified a completed exposure
pathway for TDI and other volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds at levels that may pose a serious threat to public
health in areas around the TAC facility. |
|
HDI is never used in foam production
nor is it a by-product of any chemical reaction in foam making.
Hydrocarbons, other than possible trace amounts of benzene,
would not be emitted from a foam plant. |
| During an ATSDR/EPA environmental
sampling event, residents contacted sampling personnel at approximately
10 pm on August 11 to indicate
that strong odors were present and that they were experiencing
adverse health effects similar to those previously reported. |
|
During the events of August 11 and September 3, which units
at TAC were operating that late in the evening?
|
| EPA and ATSDR
personnel confirmed the presence of the strong odors and a visible
plume of material in the ambient air. |
|
Was foam production taking place
at this time? Where did the plume originate, from the foam plant
or other facilities?
|
|
EPA personnel had two flame ionization
detector monitors (FoxboroTM organic vapor analyzers, or OVAs)
to monitor the ambient air for volatile organic vapors .
EPA personnel had calibrated those screening instruments when
they arrived in the site area on the morning of August 11.
|
|
By definition, flame ionization destroys
the vapors detected and can only give a total number with no
identification. There is no indication as to what method was
used to identify the listed products. Confusion about amounts
before and after calibration (from the draft report) still exists.
There is no report of checking for emissions either upwind from
the plant or at a time when there are no reported emissions.
|
| At approximately 10:00 pm , August
11, the OVAs detected total volatile organic compounds in the
ambient air at the residential location at levels from 2 to
6.2 units, or parts per million (ppm). The 2 OVAs were then
recalibrated (with methane) at an upwind location. After recalibration,
OVA instrument readings were as high as 2.5 units (ppm). OVA
readings remained elevated (greater than 1.0 unit [ppm]) for
several hours. EPA and ATSDR personnel continued to monitor
using the OVAs until approximately 1 am on August 12 [5].
|
|
The implication that the contaminants
detected by the OVA were coming from the foam curing facility
is made by indication of the increasing concentrations with
proximity. Even a two-dimensional dispersion should show a more
rapid decrease of the concentrations from 100 ppm than those
reported. The identity of the contaminant in the curing area
should have easily been determined as the blowing agent. |
|
A few weeks later (approximately 10 pm on September 3), an
environmental scientist and an environmental engineer from
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) observed the following OVA readings:
- From 3.5 to 5 ppm in the community
air
- From 5 to 10 ppm at the fenceline
of the TAC facility;
- Up to 100 ppm inside the foam curing
facility.
Based on these concentrations of unidentified contaminants,
ATSDR recommended
|
|
The data shows high readings outside
and up to 100 ppm in the curing area. The outside readings should
be stated as to how far away, at what level above ground and
the wind conditions at the time, etc. This is normally expected
for any outside monitoring data and is required for any of the
available computer dispersion models. Certainly, if the product
measured is methylene chloride (easily confirmed by TAC), then
there are monitors available to measure that specific chemical.
|
|
implementation of the Glenola Community Contingency Plan.
The local fire department initiated
voluntary evacuation of individuals living in 107 homes within
a 1/4-mile radius of the facility and of facility employees.
On September 3, 1997, the State Health Director issued a
public nuisance order directing the TAC facility to cease
all manufacturing (foam and fiber) operations. State health
officials indicated that the facility will remain closed until
TAC can demonstrate that the operations are no longer a public
nuisance [12].
|
|
This activity appears to have been
dramatically staged at 2:00 a.m., although readings were made
at 10:00 p.m. on the previous day. |
ATSDR has conducted air monitoring
and confirmation sampling in residential areas near the TAC
facility to quantitate ambient air TDI concentrations resulting
from foam production. ATSDR used tapemeters
with diisocyanate-specific chemcassettes and the TDI calibration
program to monitor for TDI on a continuous realtime basis during
these short release periods [13]. Results
from a confirmation sampling methodology that speciates and
specifically identifies each of the isocyanates have confirmed
the presence of TDI and HDI in the community's air [14,
15, 16]. Analysis of air
samples collected using the confirmation methodology have confirmed
the presence of TDI and HDI in short-term air samples (2-45
minutes) [16]. Because the efficiency of isocyanate
capture on the sampling device used in the confirmation methodology
is low, measured concentrations may underestimate the actual
air concentrations [14, 15,
16].
|
|
A previous draft report indicated
negative identification for any isocyanates. The confirmation
methodology is not specifically identified. Six of thirty samples
show TDI and nine of twenty samples show HDI. The concentrations
reported indicate that these could not have come from tape data,
because they are too low to be measured that way. The relationship
between micrograms per cubic meter and parts per billion is
7.2 for TDI and 6.8 for HDI. Based on that, the TDI concentrations
shown are .00036 to .025 ppb, which is considerably below the
detection limit for tapes and significantly below any reported
health effect data. For HDI, the corresponding data is .007
to .066 ppb. Again, there is no data as to where or when the
samples were taken, including the ones which showed no TDI or
HDI. Tape meters cannot detect TDI below 1 ppb.
This conclusion cannot be supported.
|
|
Thirty confirmation air samples were
collected and analyzed for TDI; TDI was detected in 6 samples
at concentrations ranging from 0.0026 to 0.18 µg/m3.
Biological Monitoring
DENR has entered into an agreement with Duke University's
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine to provide
high quality standard clinical evaluations of residents reporting
health symptoms thought to be associated with exposure to
environmental contaminants. Duke University has begun clinical
evaluations of certain residents within the air-shed of the
TAC facility who have reported adverse health effects consistent
with exposure to these substances.
|
|
The "confirmation" of the presence of TDI in the community
air is highly suspect for two reasons:
- All the levels reported are below the limit of detection
(LOD) for the method as given in ASTM D5932, Standard Test
Method for Determination of TDI in Air (with MAMA) in the
Workplace. This method covers the use of the cassette technology
cited. D5932 gives a LOD for TDI of 0.28 mg/m3 (=280 ug/m3)
with 15 L sample volume whereas the advisory reports TDI
levels of 0.0026 to 0.18 µg/m3 - 1000 times less than the
LOD. D5932 also sites validation of the method down to 0.02
ug of 2,4-TDI and 4.2 ug of 2,6-TDI. If ATSDR used a standard
1 L/min air sampling rate, the maximum sampling time of
45 minutes would collect only a total of 0.008 ug TDI (both
isomers) for the minimum reported concentration - at least
10 times less than the validated LOD.
- A description of the methodology for confirming TDI in
"short-term air samples" is not given in reference #16.
This misstatement raises doubt about the thoroughness and
reliability of the rest of the advisory; in other words,
this is "questionable science."
|
|
Thirty confirmation air samples were
collected and analyzed for TDI; TDI was detected in 6 samples
at concentrations ranging from 0.0026 to 0.18 µg/m3.
|
|
The presence of HDI was also reported
in the advisory and "confirmed." The very low levels of HDI
reported, although higher than the reported TDI, may also not
be at a validated level. HDI is not used in slabstock foaming.
Additionally, HDI has very low volatility (bp of 101o C at 0.5
mm Hg pressure) and would not be expected from any source except
a mist, which should have been reported as such from the collection
method used. |
|
These clinical evaluations being conducted by Duke University
include analysis of blood samples for the
presence of antibodies that are produced by the body as a
result of exposure to TDI. These TDI antibodies (Immunoglobulin
G (IgG) and Immunoglobulin E (IgE)) are produced as a specific
response to TDI exposure. Exposure to other chemicals will
not result in production of TDI-specific antibodies.
The analysis of the blood samples uses an enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) [17]. The ELISA tests are
both very sensitive (most individuals with TDI-specific antibodies
test positive) and very specific (most individuals without
the TDI-specific antibodies test negative) [18].
However, the ELISA test cannot be considered a sensitive
biomarker for exposure to TDI, because many individuals exposed
to TDI do not develop these antibodies. Only 14% of TDI-exposed
individuals in occupational settings exhibit the presence
of TDI antibodies [19]. In nonoccupational
settings, exposure to significant levels of TDI (i.e., TDI
levels that would cause health effects or production of TDI
antibodies) is very rare, because the compound is very volatile
(dissipates rapidly into the air) and very reactive (reacts
readily and breaks down with other substances).
|
|
The presence of TDI antibodies does not necessarily indicate
an adverse health effect, nor does it necessarily mean you have
been exposed to TDI. The test for TDI antibodies is neither
simple nor completely accurate. Some individuals test positive,
regardless of whether they have been exposed to TDI or not.
Additional testing would be required to determine if the positive
reading was actually the result of TDI exposure. Although the
presence of TDI antibodies may indicate exposure to TDI, it
does not show when, or how that exposure took place. |
|
The presence of TDI-specific antibodies
found in individuals with no known occupational exposures
to TDI is a strong indication that significant exposures to
TDI are occurring in individuals living near the TAC facility.
|
|
There is no evidence that exposures
are occurring now. Further, as stated above, a positive indication
of TDI antibodies does not necessarily indicate any exposure
to TDI. |
|
To date, one resident has tested positive
for both the TDI antibodies (IgG and IgE); three separate
evaluations of the resident's blood serum have confirmed the
results.
In addition, one of the two ATSDR employees who reported
TDI-like health effects while in the community has tested
positive and has been confirmed for one of the two TDI antibodies.
To further characterize the residential exposure to TDI and
other isocyanates, ATSDR is working to augment Duke University
medical evaluations by gathering additional biological samples
to be
|
|
According to the laboratory that
performed the evaluations, this is not correct. |
|
analyzed for antibodies to isocyanates (TDI, HDI,
and Diphenylmethylene Diisocyanate [MDI]). ATSDR worked with
the Randolph County Health Department to conduct this exposure
investigation September 21 - 22; 112 blood samples were collected.
Public Health Implications
|
|
HDI is not used in the manufacture
of flexible polyurethane foam. |
|
The exact amount of TDI required to
cause adverse health effects is unknown. People have become
sensitized after being exposed to as little as 20 parts per
billion (ppb) [17]. After
|
|
Only a "TDI challenge" test can confirm
sensitization to TDI. |
|
sensitization there is no amount of TDI that one may be exposed
to safely [18]. Studies have shown that
in sensitized individuals, asthmatic
attacks can occur after exposure to TDI air concentrations
as low as 0.l ppb [20].
Individuals who live near the TAC facility or are otherwise
near the TAC facility for significant periods of time have
reported a number of adverse health effects, including but
not limited to dizziness, breathlessness, headaches, nausea,
loss of memory, flushing of the face and neck, fatigue, lethargy,
sleeping difficulties, and asthma.
|
|
According to the TDI exposure model
prepared by an independent consultant following EPA-approved
modeling procedures, TDI exposures are much lower than 0.1 ppb
(100 parts per trillion). |
|
These adverse health effects are consistent
with effects resulting from inhalation exposure to hazardous
substances such as TDI/isocyanates and methylene chloride.
These individuals include residents as well as personnel from
DENR and ATSDR.
|
|
These ill effects could also be caused
by exposure to other compounds. Further investigation is needed.
|
| Analytical
data of HDI/TDI in off-site air, along with the health complaints
of residents in the community near the foam plant which are
consistent with TDI exposure, indicate that the Trinity
Foam Plant may pose a serious threat to public health for people
in the surrounding community and possibly for workers at the
facility. |
|
The finding of HDI raises serious
questions about the accuracy of the analysis since HDI is not
used in the manufacturing of polyurethane foams. |
|
The OVAs do not indicate which specific
organic compound the instrument is detecting and measuring.
|
|
Since the compounds are unknown,
further tests should be conducted to identify them. |
|
However, the unknown nature of the
organic compound or compounds being measured at levels above
1.0 unit (ppm) by the OVA requires that ATSDR assume they
are of potential health and safety concern and thus
implement certain employee health and safety policies and
procedures.
|
|
If the OVA's analysis at levels above
1 ppm require that ATSDR assume a potential health and safety
concern, then the regulation is technically unsound. These levels
can be obtained almost anywhere at anytime. Since the compounds
are unknown, further tests should be conducted. |
|
Until the specific organic contaminants in the ambient air
are identified and characterized, any
agency personnel present during elevated OVA readings (1 -
5 ppm) must wear EPA Level C respiratory protection.
Use of EPA Level C respiratory protection requires proper
training and medical clearance; agency personnel who are not
properly trained and medically cleared are required to leave
the area immediately when OVA readings indicate volatile organic
compounds at levels of 1 - 5 ppm [21].
This ATSDR policy is consistent with the EPA's guidelines:
"A range of background to 5 ppm above ambient background concentrations
of vapors/gases in the atmosphere has been established as
guidance for selecting Level C protection.
|
|
If this is the case, we should wear a Level C respirator day
and night. Highway workers and gas station attendants would
require such protection. |
|
Concentrations in the air of unidentified
vapors/gases approaching or exceeding 5 ppm would warrant
upgrading respiratory protection to a self-contained breathing
apparatus" [22].
Because the OVA readings that exceed 1.0 unit (ppm) were
taken near residences, the potential for exposure of community
members is also of public health concern. The episodic nature
of these "contaminant release" events makes it difficult to
characterize the potential for human exposure fully and to
implement appropriate protective public health responses consistently.
BASIS FOR THE ADVISORY
ATSDR issues this public health advisory based on the following:
- Available information regarding the past, current, and
potential future air emissions from the TAC facility on
Glenola Industrial Drive.
|
|
This is industry practice when working
with isocyanates. |
- The frequency and severity of adverse
health effects reported by local residents.
- The consistent relationship between hazardous substances
such as TDI and methylene chloride known to be emitted by
this facility and the acute and chronic symptoms reported
by residents (including difficulty breathing, difficulty
concentrating, poor memory, and dull headaches).
- The confirmed measurement of isocyanates in the ambient
air of the community at levels known to produce the reported
health effects in sensitized individuals, such as bronchial
hyperresponsiveness, and declines in lung function.
- The presence of biomarkers of exposure to isocyanates
in the blood of some individuals who reside or otherwise
spend time near the TAC facility and who have reported health
effects that are plausibly related to exposure to isocyanates
and other hazardous contaminants.
CONCLUSIONS
|
|
The number of local residents who
reported adverse health effects was not stated. |
|
Based on the available information,
ATSDR concludes that hazardous substances are being emitted
from the Trinity American Corp. facility on Glenola Industrial
Drive in Randolph County, North Carolina. These emissions
are resulting in off-site air concentrations of contaminants
at levels that may pose a serious threat to public health.
|
|
This conclusion is not and cannot
be supported based on the reported data, flawed science, and
debatable biological monitoring results. |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS
ATSDR recommends that appropriate agencies take the following
actions:
|
|
PFA would like to obtain details regarding the confirmatory
air sampling and analysis that has reportedly confirmed the
presence of TDI and purported HDI in the community's air.
|
- Use their statutory, regulatory, or administrative authorities
to implement measures that will immediately reduce or eliminate
opportunities for residential exposures to hazardous substances
emitted from the TAC facility.
- Conduct environmental sampling as appropriate (air, private
well water, surface water, surface soil, and biota) to facilitate
qualitative and quantitative estimates of residential exposures
under a variety of scenarios.
- Investigate the TAC facility and interview employees to
assess occupational exposures.
- Provide local health care providers and public health
officials with necessary information on the diagnoses and
treatment of symptoms and health effects associated with
environmental exposures to the specific chemicals and classes
of chemicals identified.
- Conduct biomedical testing (analyses of blood) for biomarkers
of exposure to TDI and other isocyanates among community
members and TAC employees.
- Consider studies (including biomarkers of effect) for
the prevalence of various exposure-related health effects
among residents and TAC employees.
For additional information, please contact ATSDR at the following
address:
Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE
Director, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road NE (E32)
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
(404) 639-0610
REFERENCES
- Results of Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry/North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources TDI monitoring from May 19,
1997, through June 1, 1997.
- Roy F. Weston.. Memorandum to Beth Mileson,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, concerning ambient air sampling results (September
19 - 25, 1996). October 9, 1996.
- North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources. Analytical results from Air
Toxics Analytical Support Team.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Draft air consultation released for 30-day public comment
period. August 27, 1997.
- Roy F. Weston. Memorandum to Lori Cherry,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources concerning DEECO off-gas study. March 17, 1997.
- State of North Carolina, County of Randolph.
Trinity American Corporation/special order by consent. July
26, 1996.
- North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Air Quality Toxics Protection
Unit. Air Toxics Analytical Support Team (ATAST) report
of investigation, Trinity Foam Company, Glenola, NC, Randolph
County, investigation #95005, March 14 - September 15, 1996.
- US Census Bureau, TIGER/Line Files, 1990 (Archdale,
North Carolina), prepared by the Bureau of Census, US Census
Bureau, Washington, DC, 1991.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
public availability session, Archdale, North Carolina. May
9, 1997.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Personal communication between Theresa Kilgus and staff
of the State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Air Toxics Analytical Support
Team. July 1997.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Employees incident report concerning exposures to unknown
air contaminants identified by OVA readings in exceedance
of 5 ppm indicating implementation of Level C personal protective
equipment. August 15, 1997.
- Levine R, State of North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Order of abatement
to Trinity American Corp. September 3, 1997.
- Zellweger Analytics, Inc. Technical notes
on the response verification procedures for chemcassette-based
toxic gas monitoring systems. June 3, 1997.
- Lesage J, et al. Workers exposure to isocyanates.
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1992 Feb;
53:146-53.
- Omega Specialty IsoCheck. Marketing information
on isocyanate sampling cassette for 2,4 TDI, 2,6 TDI, 1,6
HDI, and MDI. Chelsford, (MA): 1996.
- Levine, S.P. et al., "Critical Review of
Methods of Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring for TDI and
MDI", American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1995
June; 53:146-53.
- Unanue ER, Benacerraf B. Textbook of immunology.
2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984:4.
- National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Preventing asthma and death from diisocyanate
exposure, alert 1996. Department of Health and Human Services;
1996.Publication No.: 96-111, pages 1 - 16.
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the threshold limit values
and biological exposure indices. 6th ed. Cincinnati 1991.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Medical management guidelines for acute chemical exposures
(MMGs), toluene diisocyanate. October 1993:1 - 4.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Health and safety program for hazardous substance field
activities: policy and procedures. 1995.
- Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Standard operating safety
guides, PB92-963414. June 1992
|
|
PFA is concerned about the welfare
of the people who reported adverse health effects. The findings
of the ATSDR do not support its conclusion that TAC's foam operation
or the chemicals used in its operation were the proximate cause.
The true cause remains unidentified. PFA recommends further
study of the site conditions at the time of the complaints to
be conducted by independent experts experienced in airborne
release modeling. Additional medical and biological studies
are also needed under the supervision of specialists experienced
with the exposure effects of the chemicals used at the TAC foam
facility. |