PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXPERT PANEL WORKSHOP
TO EVALUATE THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS-
CONTAMINATED WASTE

September 13-14, 1993
Bloomington, Indiana

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Atlanta, Georgia


Foreword

The public's concern about hazardous wastes continues to increase worldwide. Increasingly, the public health hazards associated with disposal of hazardous wastes have become a focus of these concerns. At the center of this debate are issues regarding the public health impacts of remedial technologies.

Among remedial technologies currently used, incineration has drawn the attention of regulatory officials, public health officials, legislators, industry, academe, and the general public. Many communities have expressed to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) their concerns about the potential implications of incinerating wastes. These questions often cannot be addressed because of a lack of pertinent data and information.

In 1992, as a result of health concerns expressed by residents in Bloomington, Indiana, two members of Congress requested that ATSDR address any public health implications of incinerating polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated wastes associated with six hazardous waste sites in that area. The ATSDR Bloomington PCB Project has been conducted in response to that request.

As part of the project, ATSDR convened an expert panel workshop to identify and evaluate all pertinent information related to the public health implications of human exposure to PCBs. Discussions during the workshop focused on three key areas: health effects of PCBs, incineration of PCB- contaminated waste, and non-incineration remedial technologies. Chapters 2 through 4 of these proceedings present a summary of the pertinent findings in each of these three areas.

ATSDR believes this report will serve as a valuable resource for the public, health and environmental agencies, and policymakers involved with the management of hazardous wastes. In addition to evaluating all available information pertinent to the health effects, treatment, and disposal of PCB-contaminated wastes, this document also identifies key data needs and public health actions to be undertaken to enhance our collective knowledge and ability to reduce and, where possible, prevent the potential public health consequences associated with improperly managed wastes. ATSDR encourages public health investigators to consider the findings in these proceedings as a framework for future actions taken to address the health concerns associated with disposal of hazardous wastes.

Barry L. Johnson, Ph.D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Assistant Administrator, ATSDR


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

ATSDR Project Management
Acknowlegements
Health Effects Panel
Incineration Panel Members
Non-Incineration Remedial Technologies Panel Members
ATSDR Bloomington Workgroup
Executive Summary

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 - Expert Panel Report Health Effects Panel.

Chapter 3 - Expert Panel Report PCB Incineration Panel

Chapter 4 - Expert Panel Report Non-Incineration Remedial Technologies.

Chapter 5 - Key Data Needs

Appendix I - Project Description
Appendix II - Workshop Agenda
Appendix III- Videotape Index
Appendix IV - Response to Comments Received




ATSDR Project Management

Maureen Y. Lichtveld, M.D., M.P.H. - Project Director
Chief Biomedical Officer for Public Health Practice
Public Health Practice Coordination Group

Allan S. Susten, Ph.D., D.A.B.T - Technical Director
Assistant Director for Science
Division of Health Assessments and Consultation

Contributors

Betty C. Willis, M.S. - Co-Chair, Incineration Panel
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Joseph C. Carpenter, P.E. - Co-Chair
Non-Incineration Remedial Technologies Panel
Environmental Engineer
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Obaid M. Faroon, Ph.D., D.V.M. - Co-Chair, Health Effects Panel
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Toxicology

Lee M. Sanderson, Ph.D. - Co-Chair, Health Effects Panel
Environmental Epidemiologist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Lynn C. Wilder, M.S.Hyg. - Co-Chair
Non-Incineration Remedial Technologies Panel
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE
Director
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation




Acknowledgements

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) gratefully acknowledges the guidance and advice provided by the expert panel members during the workshop and the preparation of chapters two through four of these proceedings. The panel members are listed on the following pages.

The Agency expresses its appreciation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) for their assistance in the development of the project.

ATSDR also wishes to thank the Indiana State Department of Health for their contribution to the workshop and the City of Bloomington for its hospitality.

Appreciation is extended to the members ATSDR Bloomington PCB Project Workgroup, listed on the following pages, for their diligent efforts and guidance and to Kathryn Harben for her editorial assistance. ATSDR also expresses its appreciation to Wendell Webb for his efforts in the presentation, formatting and printing of the Proceedings. ATSDR also acknowledges the contributions to the workshop of all divisions and offices.

ATSDR also appreciates the support from the Bloomington community and all other organizations who contributed to the expert panel workshop.




MEMBERS OF EXPERT PANEL

CHAIR: James M. Melius, M.D., Dr.P.H.
Director, Division of Occupational Health
     and Environmental Epidemiology
New York State Department of Health

CO-CHAIR: Lee M. Sanderson, Ph.D.
Senior Epidemiologist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CO-CHAIR: Obaid M. Faroon, Ph.D., D.V.M.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Toxicology
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

RAPPORTEUR: Greg Steele, Dr.P.H., M.P.H.
Environmental Epidemiologist
Indiana State Department of Health

Henry A. Anderson, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer, Occupational and Environmental Health
Wisconsin Division of Health

Jean D. Brender, R.N., Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Epidemiology Program
Texas Department of Health

Dorothy A. Canter, Ph.D.
Science Advisor, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Theodora Emily Colborn, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
World Wildlife Fund, Inc.

Joe G. N. Garcia, M.D.
Professor of Medicine, Physiology, Biophysics
Director, Indiana University Occupational Lung Center
Indiana University School of Medicine

Stephen B. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
Manager, Environmental Science and Technology
General Electric Corporation

George W. Lucier, Ph.D.
Chief, Laboratory of Biochemical Risk Analysis
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Mitchell Singal, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Officer
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health




CHAIR: Richard S. Magee, Sc.D., P.E., DEE
Director, Northeast Hazardous Substances Research Center
NJ Institute of Technology

CO-CHAIR: Betty C. Willis, M.S.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

RAPPORTEUR: Harvey W. Rogers, M.S.
Chief, Environmental Engineering Program
National Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Pat Costner, M.S.
Research Director, U.S. Toxics Campaign
Greenpeace

William H. Farland, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert E. Ginsburg, Ph.D.
Environmental Health Consultant

Kathryn E. Kelly, Dr. P.H.
President
Environmental Toxicology International, Inc.

Donald A. Oberacker, M.S.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Adel F. Sarofim, Sc.D.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Chemical Engineering

Curtis C. Travis, Ph.D.
Health Effects Director, Center for Risk Management
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Andrew R. (Drew) Trenholm, M.S.
Midwest Research Institute




CHAIR: Frederick G. Pohland, Ph.D., P.E., DEE
Edward R. Weidlein Chair of Environmental Engineering
     and Professor of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Pittsburgh

CO-CHAIR: Joseph C. Carpenter, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CO-CHAIR: Lynn C. Wilder, M.S.Hyg.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

RAPPORTEUR: James J. Cudahy, M.S., M.B.A., P.E.
President
Focus Environmental, Inc.

Harry L. Allen, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Response Team

John F. Brown, Jr., Ph.D.
Manager, Environmental Toxicology Branch
Environmental Laboratory
GE Corporate Research & Development

Joseph G. Hailer, M.S.
Waste Policy Institute

Peter B. Lederman, Ph.D., P.E., DEE, P.P.
Director, Center for Environmental Engineering and Science, and Research Professor of Chemical Engineering
New Jersey Institute of Technology

John F. Quensen, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Michigan State University

Charles J. Rogers, M.S.
Senior Research Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

Rengarajan Soundararajan, Ph.D.
Research Chemist
RMC Environmental and Analytical Laboratories, Inc.

Paul Trost, Ph.D.
Consultant
Director of Remediation Engineering and Consulting Services
Remediation and Field Services Group
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.




ATSDR Bloomington Workgroup

Cheri Ahern
Joseph Carpenter, P.E.
Consuella Cutright
Candace Davis
Annette Dodd
Louise Fabinski
Obaid Faroon, D.V.M, Ph.D.
Peggy Graham
William Greim, M.S., M.P.H
Maureen Y. Lichtveld, M.D., M.P.H.
Manna Muroya, M.P.H.
Marie B. Patterson
Jerry Pereira, M.P.A.
Lee Sanderson, Ph.D.
Allan Susten, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Andrea Wargo, Ph.D.
Lynn Wilder, M.S.Hyg.
Betty Willis, M.S.




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Because of health concerns expressed by residents of the area surrounding Bloomington, Indiana, in 1992 Senator Richard Lugar and Congressman Frank McCloskey asked ATSDR to address any potential public health implications of incinerating wastes contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from six hazardous waste sites in and around Bloomington. In response to this request, ATSDR has undertaken a multi-phase project.

The Bloomington PCB Project has three purposes:

To achieve those purposes, ATSDR defined four tasks, which are being conducted concurrently:

Task 1: Develop a preliminary evaluation (preliminary report) of all past, present, and future human exposure pathways, available health outcome data, and community health concerns associated with the six sites: Bennett Stone Quarry, Lemon Lane Landfill, Neal's Dump, Neal's Landfill, Anderson Road Landfill, and Winston-Thomas Sewage Treatment Plant.

Task 2: Conduct a comprehensive review of past PCB-related health studies.

Task 3: Evaluate the public health implications of incinerating PCB-contaminated wastes.

Task 4: Evaluate the public health implications of technically feasible remedial strategies other than incineration.

Three expert panels composed of 30 national experts outside of ATSDR assisted in conducting Tasks 2, 3, and 4. In September 1993, ATSDR convened the panels at Indiana University, in Bloomington. The panels were charged with identifying and evaluating all pertinent data and information related to the public health implications of human exposure to PCBs. ATSDR views these panels as critical sources of information about incineration and other non-incineration remedial technologies as this relates to the treatment and disposal of PCB-contaminated wastes.

Every effort was made to choose panel members with demonstrated expertise as well as diverse viewpoints and professional affiliations. To ensure that diverse viewpoints were expressed, the panels were not asked to reach consensus. These proceedings are a summary of the panels' deliberations.

The following key conclusions were synthesized by ATSDR based on the discussions by three panels:

Conclusions

A. Health Effects

  1. Assessing the potential health effects of exposure to PCBs is a complex subject. While considerable research has been done in this area, there is much that remains unknown or uncertain, and new research on the subject continues to expand our knowledge about the toxicity of these chemicals.

  2. PCB toxicity can result from a number of mechanisms, and the chemical structure of the different PCB congeners is important in determining the toxic effect of each. Because these so-called "structure activity" relationships have not been fully elaborated, more research is needed.

  3. The toxicities of non-dioxin-like PCBs (for example, estrogen-like and phenobarbital-like PCBs) are important from a public health perspective, because of the potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to these substances. Applying Toxicologic Equivalent Factors (TEFs) to determine the contribution of dioxin-like PCBs to overall dioxin/furan risks appears to be feasible and should be pursued.

  4. Cancer has been a major focus of health research pertaining to PCBs. Higher-chlorinated PCB mixtures have been shown to be carcinogenic in experiments involving laboratory animals. Lower-chlorinated PCBs have been shown to be less carcinogenic in long-term animal bioassays; a number of possible explanations have been offered. Studies of the carcinogenicity of PCBs in human populations, on the other hand, have been equivocal and difficult to interpret. Further research into the carcinogenicity of PCBs is needed, including laboratory studies and epidemiological follow up of exposed populations.

  5. Public health concerns about adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes related to PCB exposure have increased over the past few years. Recent research seems to indicates that exposure to PCBs may cause reproductive and neurodevelopmental changes in exposed laboratory animals and in some people with environmental exposure to PCBs.

  6. Concerns have also been expressed about immunological and neurological effects. Further study is needed to determine any association between these effects and exposure to PCBs.

  7. Evaluation of the health risks associated with the remediation of PCBs should focus not only on the risks of PCBs but on the risks of all identified substances. Quantitative exposure analysis of all contaminants--and evaluation of their fate and transport--is needed.

  8. Access to PCB-related health and environmental information is lacking; a central information repository is needed.

B. Incineration

  1. Incinerators can handle a variety of waste feed types; however, no information is currently available regarding the simultaneous incineration of PCB-contaminated soils, municipal solid wastes, and sewage sludges. It is doubtful that stable operating conditions and adequate PCB destruction could be achieved with this combination of waste feeds. Metals should be kept out of waste feeds to the extent possible.

  2. Emissions of organic products of incomplete combustion (PIC) from other combustion sources are generally greater than PIC emissions from hazardous waste or PCB-waste incinerators. PICs are emitted from all combustion devices and are not necessarily related to the waste being burned. For example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and benzene are commonly found in emissions from wood-burning stoves, automobiles, cigarettes, coal-fired power plants, municipal solid waste incinerators, and medical waste incinerators. Total organic emissions from hazardous waste and PCB incinerators are generally less than 20 parts per million (ppm) of the stack gases. The quantity and isomers of dioxins and furans formed are more a function of incinerator design and operation (that is, combustion efficiency, temperature profile through the equipment, etc.) than waste feed composition. The concentration and availability of chlorinated materials and trace catalytic metals, such as copper, also affect production of dioxins and furans. Even though polyhalogenated dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals are present in extremely low concentrations, an incinerator's cumulative loadings to the environment may have long-term impacts on public health.

  3. Testing (trial burns, periodic retesting of stack emissions, and testing for fugitive emissions) should be better targeted to provide more relevant information for health impact assessments. Fugitive emissions are not frequently measured or accounted for when considering the health impact of a facility. If special prepared feeds are used to test worst- case incineration conditions during a trial burn, the facility should also be tested when it burns actual waste feeds. Stack and ambient air testing is needed during upset conditions to determine the impact these events may have on the public. During the trial burns, the stack emissions should be screened for persistent and bioaccumulative compounds, as well as for those of greatest inherent toxicity and those emitted in the largest volume.

  4. To minimize the public health impacts of incineration, careful selection and design of facility components (combustor, air pollution control equipment, and waste handling areas) is important. It is also important to evaluate, and ensure the quality of the following aspects of facility operation: operator training, routine inspections and maintenance of the entire facility, calibration of monitoring equipment, and quality control of all aspects of incinerator operation (waste feed analysis, stack emissions monitors, process monitors, and recording devices).

C. Non-Incineration Remedial Technologies

  1. There is no single non-incineration technology applicable for all PCB-contaminated matrices. Whatever technology is selected, site- and matrix-specific characteristics are the determining factors in the applicability of the technology, on the production of wastestreams, byproducts, and endproducts; and on the risk that the technology poses to human health.

  2. Knowledge of the performance histories of PCB treatment technologies is limited. For most of the technologies used to treat PCB-contaminated material, there are significant data gaps for possible air emission and endproduct contaminants.

  3. Possible human exposure routes for any of the technology categories vary according to the process and reagents used, the effectiveness of the technology, and site-specific contamination and contaminant location issues (for example, proximity to residential areas, sensitive populations, etc.). Site- and technology-specific information and treatability and pilot test data are necessary to evaluate specific exposure scenarios.

  4. Uncertainties about the feasibility and public health implications of technologies can be better addressed through sampling and analyses of fugitive emissions, byproducts, and wastestreams. Engineering controls or monitors and safeguards should be used to prevent adverse health impacts on workers and the community.

Based on these conclusions, ATSDR developed the following key recommendations:

Recommendations

A. Health Effects

  1. Conduct studies to assess the effects of PCBs on reproduction in occupationally or environmentally exposed women and men, controlling for known or suspected confounding factors.

  2. Conduct studies to assess the neurologic and long-term public health consequences of occupational and prenatal exposures.

  3. Before operation, conduct baseline surveys of exposures and health status of workers at, and communities near, existing or new PCB incinerators.

  4. Conduct research to further evaluate the utility of Toxicologic Equivalent Factors (TEFs) for estimating environmental and public health risks of PCBs. Emphasize research related to estrogen-like and phenobarbital-like PCBs. Such research should consider metabolic activity, additivity of toxic equivalents, interaction (or antagonistic) effects, and species and outcome specificity.

  5. ATSDR should establish a PCB database to collect, summarize, and store relevant data on health effects of PCB congeners and mixtures and on ongoing research. The Agency also conduct, or encourage other agencies to perform, biomarker, biomonitoring, body burden, and health studies, etc., on workers and the public in communities where incinerators are located to develop a database of persons exposed to incinerator emissions and any health impacts related to such exposure. One or more of the biomarker or biomonitoring studies should be a "before and after" study in a community where a new incinerator is sited.

B. Incineration

  1. ATSDR should assess the potential local and national health impacts of incineration.

  2. ATSDR should evaluate the health impacts of transportation of PCB-contaminated wastes to incineration facilities, including the effects of fugitive and volatile emissions.

  3. Evaluate process emissions during upset conditions, primarily for acute effects but also for their contribution to chronic effects on community and worker populations.

  4. Use data from the full-scale operating unit when assessing any site-specific health effects. When evaluating a proposed incinerator, data from similarly designed, full-scale incinerators burning similar wastes should be used. Data from laboratory scale and pilot scale studies can be used for preliminary health effects estimates.

  5. Because the speciation of trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium in stack emissions is highly variable, some panelists recommended assuming that chromium emissions are 100% hexavalent if the speciation is not specifically determined in the stack emissions.

  6. Conduct pilot scale tests (or full scale tests, if a similar unit is available) to determine the feasibility of burning the waste and to ensure optimal incinerator design and operating parameters if the waste feed proposed to be incinerated is unique and there are no previous data on incineration of this waste feed.

  7. Screen stack emissions during trial burns for persistent and bioaccumulative compounds, as well as for those of greatest inherent toxicity and largest volume.

  8. Residuals (fly-ash, bottom-ash) should not be mixed with other materials until these are characterized and disposal options are evaluated.

  9. Conduct fenceline or on-site ambient air monitoring to ensure worker and community protection.

  10. Test incinerator emissions during upset conditions to determine the impact these events may have on the public.

  11. Make emissions and facility operating data available to the public and regulators by remote telemetry, so they can access information about operating conditions and stack emissions on a continuing basis.

  12. Conduct extensive environmental sampling around one or two incinerators to better characterize impacts from deposition of process and fugitive emissions.

  13. Sample residential soil in communities around incinerators to verify actual concentrations of PCBs, rather than depend on dispersion modeling to estimate deposition of contaminants.

  14. Evaluate the potential health impacts of alternative technologies with the same scrutiny as is given to incineration.

  15. Compile a database containing trial burn data on PCB and hazardous waste incinerators, including incinerator operating conditions and incinerator design. Information in the database could be used to make better decisions regarding the applicability of incineration to a particular wastestream and the potential public health impacts of PCB and hazardous waste incinerators.

  16. Collect and catalog the hazardous waste incinerator siting criteria of the approximately 40 states believed to have such criteria in place.

C. Non-Incineration Remedial Technologies

  1. Sample and analyze fugitive emissions, byproducts, and wastestreams to better address uncertainties about the feasibility and public health implications of technologies.

  2. Develop a more consistent comparative process of permitting, testing, and monitoring all remediation technologies.

  3. To provide a more complete evaluation of technologies and to identify engineering controls warranted to protect public health, identify the contaminants of public health concern associated with those technologies.

  4. Encourage continuing research and development of waste disposal technologies to provide a broad selection of viable remedial technologies.




Next Section