Occupational Exposures to Carcinogens in an Industry: Identifying and Communicating Chemical Risk
Pasquale N Russo* and David O. Carpenter
Institute for Health and the Environment, A Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization, Collaborating Centre in Environmental Health, University at Albany, USA
*Corresponding author: Pasquale N Russo, Institute for Health and the Environment, A Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization, Collaborating Centre in Environmental Health, University at Albany, USA. Tel: +15185678093; Email: pnrusso@albany.edu
Received Date: 29 December, 2018; Accepted Date: 21 January, 2019; Published Date: 29 January, 2019
Citation: Russo PN, Carpenter DO (2019) Occupational
Exposures to Carcinogens in an Industry: Identifying and Communicating Chemical
Risk Int J Pollut Res: IJPR-105. DOI: 10.29011/IJPR-105.000005
Abstract
In
the 45 years since the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the United States has not made
sufficient progress in protecting workers from environmental exposures to known
and suspected human carcinogens. A principal obstacle to progress is limited
information on the extent and identity of carcinogenic exposures in the
workplace. The aim of this study was to develop a method for identifying such
exposures. Using publicly available EPA data sets, we examined the potential
for exposure to carcinogens at one large aerospace manufacturing facility in
the U.S. A total of 394 unique chemicals were identified. This number included
131 unique chemicals or chemical categories (33%) associated with malignant and
benign neoplasms, including 78 chemicals categorized as “known human
carcinogens” by one or more authoritative bodies. These findings disclose a
problem of national significance.
Keywords: Carcinogens; occupation; National Emissions Inventory; Toxic Release Inventory; Safety Data Sheets
Introduction
Cancer
incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990 [1]. In the United
States the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has projected that death from cancer will exceed death
from cardiovascular disease by 2020, if it has not done so already [2]. While
it is good news that deaths from cardiovascular disease are declining, it is
not such good news that deaths from cancer are not declining as rapidly. Cancer
is due to several different factors, including genetics, inflammation,
infection and exposure to carcinogenic substances ranging from radiation to
chemicals [3-5].
The
President’s Cancer Panel [6] stated “There is a lack of emphasis on
environmental research as a route to primary cancer prevention.” Our goal in
this report is to demonstrate that publicly available data can be used to
document the number of known human chemical carcinogens that workers in one
plant and residents in the nearby community are potentially exposed to.
The
U.S. Occupational Safety And Health Administration (OSHA) and the National
Institute Of Occupational Safety And Health (NIOSH) are responsible for
regulating and supporting the necessary research to assure safe and healthful
working conditions in the U.S. Included as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments And Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III or SARA) passed by Congress
in 1986 is the Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA),
which requires that facilities inform workers of all hazardous substances to
which may result in exposure. This is to be communicated by training and by
Safety Data Sheets. (SDS). The law requires that an SDS for every product used
at a facility that lists its chemical ingredients must be made available to all
employees. The assumption is not that every employee is exposed but rather that
there is a potential for every employee to be exposed.
Another
major goal of EPCRA was to report the use, storage, production or release of
hazardous chemicals to state and local governments, emergency responders and
the public. This is because toxic chemicals used at the facility may affect not
only the employees, but also individuals living near to the plant. The starting
point of this process is a facility’s submission of a Title II form as required
under Section 312 of the Act. As stated by EPA, “The purpose of this form is to
provide State, local officials, and the public with specific information on
potential hazards. This includes the locations, as well as the amount, of
hazardous chemicals present at your facility during the previous calendar
year.” Thus, the Act was designed to serve two related purposes: to meet a
requirement that both the employee and the local community have a right-to-know
of potential hazards and to provide for emergency planning within the local
environment should there be releases of toxic substances.
The
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is a federal program for tracking industrial
emissions. At present, the system collects data from large industrial
facilities for 696 chemicals released on-site (air, water, land, underground
injection) or transferred off-site (for various types of disposal or
recycling). While the data sets and analytical tools available to the general
public are inadequate for the purposes of epidemiological research, detailed
TRI data for the years 1987 to 2012 supplied by EPA have been used to create a
Structured Query Language (SQL)-compliant database that makes it possible to
identify facilities using and releasing TRI chemicals by zip code and address.
The National Emissions Inventory (NEI), mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act, is
yet another EPA dataset that systematically collects data on some 300 airborne
criteria and hazardous air pollutants from industrial sources. This data has
also been converted into a SQL compliant database by the authors. All releases
can be analyzed at the country level, but only point sources can also be
identified by address or geocoordinates. It is often the case that employees
live relatively near to their workplace. Exposure to carcinogens is certainly
not limited to occupational exposure. While it is not possible to obtain
information on all sources of exposure to carcinogens from food, personal care
products and personal habits, such as smoking, we have used the information in
the TRI and NEI on county-level releases of carcinogens from industrial
sources. Together this information provides one indication of carcinogenic
chemicals in the local ambient environment.
The
goal of the present study was to use SDS and other federally mandated
environmental reports for a single large aerospace manufacturing facility to
determine the number of carcinogenic chemicals that are used at and/or released
from the plant. In addition, we have determined the total releases from the
plant and from other industrial facilities in that county, using data from the
TRI and NEI, to approximate carcinogenic risks from these sources at the local
level.
This
information is important for several reasons. Although they must be available, SDS
are rarely accessed by employees. Furthermore, SDS only present information of
the chemical or chemicals in a single product. However, both in occupational
settings and elsewhere individuals are exposed to mixtures of multiple
chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens. Some SDS lists chemical
mixtures (e.g. nickel compounds) as well as individual chemicals (e.g. metallic
nickel.).
Mixtures of chemicals may have additive, less-than-additive, or more than additive (Synergistic) actions [7], and these are rarely identified or considered by employers or by regulatory agencies.
Neither
employees, managers or union safety and health personnel are likely to know the
number of chemical carcinogens at their workplace, the quantity of releases or
their known or suspected health effects. (Upon reviewing a draft of this paper,
this statement was confirmed by an executive vice president of the union
representing this work site.).
Documenting
the presence and/or use of a carcinogenic chemical through information from the
SDS does not necessarily indicate employee exposure, but it does indicate the
possibility of exposure. Other datasets, however, document releases of
chemicals into air, water or soil from a facility, and when a carcinogenic
chemical is released from a plant there is almost certainly a risk of exposure
of employees. We examine the potential exposure of workers and local residents
using data from these multiple sources. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no
published studies that have attempted to inventory all chemicals found at a
work site and their associated health effects in general and cancer in
particular.
Materials
and Methods
Study Site
The
site studied is a major jet engine production and repair facility in the U.S.
Its primary NAICS is 33641 -- Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing.
(Nationally 235 unique facilities with this NAICS reported point air pollution
releases to EPA in 2014). The workforce at this and two similar company sites
in the study site numbered slightly above 19,000 in the not too distant past.
The workforce is now down to approximately 3,000. The workers at this plant are
represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers (IAMAW) which has approximately 800,000 active and retired members in
the U.S. and Canada.
Documenting Potential Chemical Exposures
Data
documenting chemicals found on site or released from the plant were obtained
from 4 sources: facility safety data sheets (SDS), U.S. EPA TIER-II reports for
3 specific years (1998, 2008, 2014), U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
data for a 27-year period (1987-2010), and EPA National Emission Inventory
(NEI) data for 1998, 2011 and 2014. The company’s “Tool & Supply Sheets”
(April 2016) lists 4,677 individual SDS. It was not possible to examine all
these sheets. However, with the cooperation of the president of the local
union, safety and health staff provided physical copies of 404 SDS or 8.6% of
all 2016 SDS. The majority of SDS were for products currently used on site.
Seventy‑five SDS (18.6%) included in this study found in the union’s archive
were in use in the 1980s and 1990s. Most list chemicals are also found in
current SDS. There are, however, a small number of chemicals which may not be
in current use. (These older SDS available in the union’s archive were included
in our sample because a significant percentage of the current work force were
hired in the late 1970s-early 1980s and were potentially exposed to the
chemicals contained in these products Most of these chemicals continue to be
used at the facility).
Federal
legislation found in EPA TIER-II statues requires that facilities documents the
presence and locations of specific chemicals on site. Submission of Tier II
forms are required under Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). At the time of its passage, EPCRA stated
that this information would be available to those responsible for emergency
response such as fire departments as well as the public. For the public and
scientific researchers, obtaining this data is increasingly difficult. In years
past, there was little difficulty in obtaining TIER‑II data for an entire
state, and in 2000 we obtained a printed copy of the state’s full 1998 TIER-II
report which included submissions by all sites with all pertinent chemical
information, relevant portions of which are included in this study. However, a
decade later we could only obtain data for our study site and only for two
additional years (2011 and 2014). This required a written request to the
relevant state agency. Permission was granted to review this material on site
in paper form. (Though the agency maintains TIER-II data in digital form, it
would not provide it to the authors.) TRI data for the 23-year period 1987-2010
were used to determine point sources of known carcinogens included in TRI that
were released at the study site as well as from other industrial sources in the
county. TRI data is in the public domain.
(https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventorytri-program) NEI data for the
three most recent reporting years (2008, 2011 and 2014) was used to document
NEI known carcinogens released at the study site as well as all countywide
releases. NEI data is in the public domain.
(https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventorynei).
Thus, we have TRI data for the period 1997-2010 and NEI data for three years
(1998; 2011, 2014) for the county in which this particular plant was located
for the purpose of determining the particular carcinogenic chemicals in this
dataset that are known to be released and in what volume. While the data is
clearly not complete, they provide a picture of the range of carcinogens to
which employees are potentially exposed and at least a lower bound of the
quantity.
Determining Carcinogenicity of Chemicals
We searched national and international authoritative bodies for identification of chemicals used or released from this one site that have been identified as known human carcinogens.
A total
of 119 chemicals have been listed by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), a body of the World Health Organization, has identified as being
Group1,“carcinogenic to humans”.Most but not all are individual chemicals.
(http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/). U.S. National Toxicology
Program, Report on Carcinogens, 13th edition, lists all chemicals considered
known or reasonably anticipated carcinogens that they have evaluated. For this
study we are only including NTP“known” carcinogens
(https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/annualreport/2015/glance/roc/index.html). U.S. EPA
IRIS List of Known Human Carcinogens (“known” carcinogens) and EPA TRI
carcinogens. U.S. NIOSH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations
(IDLH) and the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemicals were used to identify “potential
occupational carcinogens”. NIOSH does not have the authority to list a chemical
as a known workplace carcinogen. This responsibility is solely that of OSHA. A
review of the NIOSH literature shows that the Agency considers many more
chemicals “potential occupational carcinogens” than are regulated by OSHA as
“known carcinogens”. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s
current list of substances that the Agency regulates as known carcinogens can
be found at:
(https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=24730&p_table=INTERPRETA
TIONS).
Information
was also obtained from the California Proposition 65 (CA
P65).(oehha.ca.gov/proposition65/proposition-65-list).
(https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/search/index.cfm?keyword=human+carcinogens%2C+known).
Any chemical documented as being present or released from the site that was
identified by a unique CAS number in at least one of these datasets as being
carcinogenic to humans was identified.
Not all
chemicals at the study site have been evaluated by all agencies. In addition,
different agencies have drawn different conclusions about the potential of any
given substance’s potential to cause cancer. Of the agencies considered
“authorities”, IARC undertakes the most rigorous evaluation. For this reason,
chemicals IARC considers “probable human carcinogens” (Group 2A) or “possible
human carcinogens” (Group 2B) were not included in this report unless another
agency considers it a “known” carcinogen (NTP, CA P65, OSHA) or “potential occupational
carcinogen” (NIOSH).
Results
Of the
119 individual substances identified by IARC as “known (Group 1) human
carcinogens, 29 are present at the site.
The
National Toxicology Program has identified 62 substances as being “known human
carcinogens”. Of these 35 are individual chemicals and 17 are present at the
site.
EPA
lists 10 chemicals and two mixtures as being “known human carcinogens” and 11
are at the site.
NIOSH
lists 132 chemicals or mixtures as being “potential human carcinogens”, and 31
individual chemicals are found at the site. OSHA lists 26 chemicals as
“recognized human carcinogens” and 10 are present at the site.
CA P65
lists 592 chemicals, of which all but 55 are single chemicals, “known to the
State to cause cancer” and 63 are found at the site.
(Table
1) lists chemicals found at the site as identified by SDS, EPA TIER-II, TRI or
NEI reports that are included in one or more of the above national or
international listings as being carcinogenic. Having a SDS indicates that the
chemical is present at the facility but does not provide detailed information
on degree of use and/or exposure. The TRI contains facility reported releases
into air, land, waste and underground injection. TIER-II indicates the presence
and location of the chemical and NEI air releases.
(Table
2) lists shows the evidence of carcinogenicity and volume of releases for eight
TRI-regulated known human carcinogens at the site: cobalt, Di-(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate [DEHP], naphthalene, nickel, nickel compounds, perchloroethylene,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and sulfuric acid. The chemical with the
greatest reported release by far is perchloroethylene (1.45 million pounds). Of
the total releases of 1.5 million pounds, the large portion were fugitive
(non-stack) releases (1.3 million pounds). There were also reported releases of
metals (cobalt and nickel) and organics (di-2-ethylhexyl) phthalate or DEHP,
naphthalene, polyromantic hydrocarbons) and acids.
(Table
3) lists county-level releases (in pounds) of known carcinogens as reported
from the TRI and NEI. This table shows that in the 23-year period 1987 to 2010,
9.85 million pounds of known carcinogen were reported by TRI, and 171,811
pounds were reported by NEI for the years 2008, 2011 and 2014. Over a typical
work life of thirty or more years at this work site, residence in the county
for a similar length of time and the ubiquity of these chemicals as ambient
pollutants, it is not unreasonable to assume that workers at the study site
have the potential of being exposed.
Discussion
Between
September 2008 and January 2009, the President’s Cancer Panel (USDHHS 2010)
convened four national meetings “to assess the state of environmental cancer
research, policy and programs addressing known and potential effects of
environmental exposure on cancer.” The Panel’s report was released in 2010.
“Research on environmental causes of cancer has been limited by low priority
and inadequate funding. There is a lack of emphasis on environmental research
as a route to primary cancer prevention. Cancer prevention efforts have focused
narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors and chemo-preventive
interventions. Scientific evidence on individual and multiple environmental
exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health
system and societal costs, are not being adequately integrated into national
policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access and
health system reform.”
The
results of our study, considering these comments from the President’s Cancer
Panel, raise three significant questions. First, what percentage of cancers are
a likely consequence of exposure to chemical carcinogens? Secondly, what is the
impact of occupational as compared to non-occupational exposures? Finally, how
adequate are policies that both inform people of hazards and act to reduce exposure
to chemical carcinogens?
There
is considerable debate on the question of what percentage of cancers are due to
exposure to chemical carcinogens, both in the workplace and elsewhere. Doll and
Peto (1981) [8] “provisionally estimated” that 4% of cancer was due to
occupational exposures but attributed most of this to lung cancer. Mokdad et
al. (2004) [9] ascribed only 2.3% of causes of death in the US to “toxic
agents”, but then attributed 18.1% to tobacco and 16.6% to poor diet and
physical inactivity, not distinguishing the degree to which either was due to
chemicals in tobacco or food. Schottenfeld et al. (2013) [10] list tobacco,
alcohol, ionizing radiation, solar radiation, infectious agents and obesity as
risk factors for cancer, but totally ignore exposures to chemical carcinogens
other than those related to occupation. Pruss-Ustun and colleagues from the
World Health Organization (2016) [11] attribute 19% of all cancer to
environmental factors, which includes 2-8% due to exposure in occupational
exposures. Their report does not consider smoking, alcohol, diet or genetic
factors. In discussing specific cancers, they attributed colon and rectum
cancer to low physical activity, radiation and asbestos, but do not mention
other chemical carcinogens in food. Chemical exposure is identified as a risk
factor for breast, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia, larynx, bladder and
melanoma cancers. Clapp et al. (2008) [12] note that while overall cancer rates
are declining (especially lung among men and colorectal in both sexes), some
are rising (esophagus, liver, thyroid, melanoma, non-Hodgkin’s, multiple
myeloma, testicular, bladder, brain, and lung in women). Childhood cancers
(leukemia and brain) are also rising. They and Belpomme et al. (2007) [13]
provide strong evidence that exposure to carcinogenic chemicals plays a major
role in risk of all these cancers. Christiani (2011) [14] has suggested that
85-95% of cancer arise because of exposure to specific carcinogenic agents.
In
addition to exposure to chemical carcinogens, cancer can be caused by genetics,
infection and inflammation. Lichtenstein et al. (2000) [15] reported an
analysis of mono- and di-zygotic twins in Scandinavia in an effort to
distinguish genetic from environmental factors in causation of cancer. They
concluded that most cancers were due to environmental factors. Genetic factors
were relatively unimportant in most cancers, although were significant in
prostate (42%), colorectal (35%) and breast cancer (27%). Wu et al. (2016) [16]
examined intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for cancer and concluded that
intrinsic factors contribute only modestly (less than 10-30%) to risk. This is
not to imply that individual genetic differences are unimportant, because
polymorphisms of drug metabolizing enzymes serve as modulators of cancer
susceptibility [17] and chemically-induced epigenetic changes may be of greater
importance [18].
These
reports indicate that we do not have good understanding of the relative role of
exposure to chemical carcinogens in overall cancer incidence beyond general
knowledge that many chemicals to which humans are exposed cause cancer. Clearly
carcinogenic chemicals are found in both the occupational and non-occupational
environment. While the chemical exposure in an occupational setting differs
from that of the general population, there are many carcinogens found in food,
tobacco, personal care products, and indoor and outdoor air. Many use terms
such as “life-style” to encompass such behaviors, without considering that
exposure to carcinogenic chemicals occurs from these sources. Workers at this
particular facility will, of course, have all of these non-occupational
exposures as well as those specific to the workplace.
Sources
of Exposure: Our data are from two quite different sources. The information in
the SDS implies potential exposure, while information from the TRI and NEI
reporting quantifiable emissions is stronger evidence of exposure both at the
facility and in the surrounding area. As emphasized by De Vocht et al. (2013)
[19], use of ecologic data such as that from the SDS should not be
over-interpreted but also should not be ignored. When used in conjunction with
reported releases of known carcinogens from the facility this information
provides a more comprehensive picture of uses and releases of carcinogens than
has previously been reported for any such facility, to our knowledge.
Federal
legislation makes SDS central to providing both workers and communities with
information about chemical hazards. An employer’s responsibility to make SDS
available to workers is established in 29 CFR 1900.1200 Hazard Communication,
Toxic and Hazardous Substances. A corporation’s responsibility to provide state
and local emergency coordination committees with SDS in order to detail the
hazards of the chemicals they handle is established by the Emergency Response
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and subsequent amendments.
However,
there are few comprehensive evaluations of the accuracy of SDS\MSDS. Noteworthy
is a literature review by Nicol et al. (2008) [20] which concluded: “Despite
the fact that these studies varied in methodology and spanned a period of more
than 15 years, a number of common themes emerged regarding inaccuracies,
incompleteness, incomprehensibility and overall low use of MSDSs. The results of
the literature review suggest that there are serious problems with the use of
MSDSs as hazard communication tools.”
Another
major limitation of the SDS is that there is no consideration of the hazard of
multiple chemical exposures. The SDS paradigm is centered on the idea that risk
to workers, consumers and communities can accurately be communicated by
describing the potential health risks of a single chemical. It is also not
uncommon for a manufacturer's SDS\MSDS to fail to list one or more hazardous ingredients
[21-23]. The content may also be vague and presented in language not clearly
understood by employees and may not present recent information on the chemical
under consideration.
All
evidence would suggest that industrial workers are exposed to more carcinogenic
chemicals than the general population simply because of the chemicals used at
the site. What is striking to us is that neither the national or local union
leadership at this facility, to say nothing of individual employees, were aware
of the extent of potential exposure to carcinogens before being presented with
the above results. There is little or no incentive for employers to provide
more information on potential exposure to carcinogens beyond what is required
by law, which is in practice only to have the information on the SDS available
for interested employees. At the local site the union and safety personnel are
those that should be pushing for additional health and safety measures. But at
this facility, as in many, concerns about maintaining jobs often stifles
enthusiasm even by union officials for systematically determining potential
exposure to dangerous substances and pushing for greater safety for employees.
While
national standards for releases of many individual chemicals in the workplace
exist, these consider individual chemicals one at a time without consideration
of the numbers of different chemicals to which workers are potentially exposed
and the possible interactions resulting. When a person accepts employment at a
facility such as this they are basically agreeing to working with potential
exposure to chemicals listed in the SDS. However, workers rarely take the
effort to inform themselves of chemical hazards and the consequent health
effects Leigh JP (2011). For various reasons, national and state government
agencies responsible for worker health and safety as well as national and local
unions have not made reducing potential exposure to [24] carcinogens a
priority.
The
goal of this study was to show how a more meaningful right-to-know inventory
could be created.
OSHA
Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) mandates that private-sector
employers must provide chemical information to their workers, and many states
have their own right-to-know laws that cover public-sector workers. OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard has four principal requirements: (1) Employers must
maintain a list of all hazardous products known to be in the workplace. (2)
Chemical containers must have labels. (3) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) that
describe the dangers of a chemical and how to prevent exposure must be
provided. (4) Workers must be trained about chemical hazards.
This
Study Directly Relates to 3 of These 4 Requirements
Employers Must Maintain a List of All
Hazardous Products Known to Be in The Workplace
Union
health and safety personnel at this plant could not provide the authors with a
list of all hazardous products known to be in the workplace. If they chose,
they could print some 10,500 individual SDS sheets, but this isn’t equivalent
to a list of all known potential chemical exposures nor would it analyze the
potential adverse health effects of those chemicals. In a review of our
findings a Vice President of the national union wrote:
“Chemical
hazards are of great concern to both active members and retirees and while
Safety Data Sheets (SDS) explain how to use the chemical they are vastly unable
to address possible long-term health effects of exposures.This is the
difficulty the union and its locals have in identifying the effects of
chemicals workers are exposed to and their specific potential health risks.
We were
therefore pleasantly surprised when the Institute provide us with a preliminary
analysis of the chemical [25] hazards
they documented at an aerospace facility represented by the IAMAW. At the same
time, we were also distressed: The Institute clearly documented what we had
suspected-that our members are exposed to hundreds of chemicals each with
numerous health risks.
The
Institute’s proposal to create a site-specific hazard communication report that
(1) documents all chemicals found at a work site and (2) to list the specific
potential illness associated with each chemical along with the relevant
scientific sources is something that would be a significant improvement over
the long-term data found in most Safety Data Sheets. We believe he information
that will come out of these investigations will allow us to significantly
improve our efforts to improve worker health and safety. (IAMAW 2015)
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) That
Describe the Dangers of a Chemical and How to Prevent Exposure Must Be Provided
The
deficiencies of SDS are well documented. One critical concern is their lack of
specificity: they will indicate that a substance is considered a carcinogen by
an authoritative agency, but not the specific cancers associated with the
chemical. Surely this information is of great relevance to a company’s
employees, but it is not information found in an SDS.
Workers Must Be Trained About Chemical
Hazards
By
providing a comprehensive list of all chemicals and a detailed description of
their effects (as well as the relevant scientific references) can only make the
task of worker training about chemical hazards more meaningful, with the
additional benefit of making the work of union health and safety personnel more
focused.
The
principle of right-to-know does not require a discussion of RELs, PELs or TWAs.
This is true whether one is considering an employee’s right-to-know as covered
by the OSHA standard, a community’s right-to-know about industrial pollution as
mandated by EPA Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI), the use and storage of chemical hazards as regulated by the
right-to-know provision of the Tier II program or exposure to pesticides
mandated under the Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report, Title 42 U.S.C.
Section 7412 (which identifies the list of environmental pollutants), or Title
42 U.S.C. Section 7413 (which contains the reporting requirement for
environmental pollutants).
In
conclusion at this one aerospace facility we documented potential exposure to
78 known human carcinogens from SDS and on-site release of 1,496,235 pounds of
carcinogens in and from the facility. In addition, using federal data sources
there has been at least a total release of 3,647,900 pounds of carcinogens in
the county in which this facility is located between 1987 and 2014. This
ambient release increases the possibility of exposure to employees who live
there.
If the
first step to understanding a problem is accurately defining its nature and
extent, the methods and materials used in this analysis can be applied to any
workplace. Placing this information in the hands of workers and their
representatives provides those at greatest risk from chemical hazards the
ability to advance measures to protect their own health by reducing
carcinogenic exposures.
s.no |
Chemical name |
IARC
|
S.EPA
|
U.S. NIOSH | U.S. NTP |
U.S. OSHA |
CAP65 |
1 |
Acetaldehyde |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
2 |
Acrylonitrile |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
3 |
A-alpha-C |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
4 |
Antimony |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Antimony oxide |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
6 |
Aroclor 1260 |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
Arsenic |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
8 |
Asbestos |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
9 |
Benz(a)anthracene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
10 |
Benzene |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
11 |
Benzo(a)pyrene |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
12 |
Benzo(b)fluoranthene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
13 |
Benzo(k)fluoranthene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
14 |
Beryllium |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
15 |
Beryllium compounds |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
16 |
Butadiene, 1,3- |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
17 |
CI Pig. Yellow 36, as Cr6+ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
Cadmium |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
19 |
Cadmium oxide |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
Carbon black |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
21 |
Carbon tetrachloride |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
22 |
Cesium-137 |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
Chloroethane |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
24 |
Chloroform |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
25 |
Chloromethane |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
26 |
Chromium (VI) & inorganic Cr6+ cmp’s |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
27 |
Chrysene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
28 |
Coal tar |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
29 |
Cobalt |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
30 |
Cobalt (II) sulfate |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
31 |
Cumene [Styrofoam] |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
32 |
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
33 |
Dichlorobenzene |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
34 |
Dichloroethane, 1,1- |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
35 |
Dichloropropane, 1,2- |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
36 |
Dichloropropene, 1,3- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
37 |
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12- |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
38 |
Dioxane, 1,4- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
39 |
Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate [DEHP] |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
40 |
Ethyl acrylate |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
41 |
Ethylbenzene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
42 |
Ethylene dibromide |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
43 |
Ethylene dichloride |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
44 |
Formaldehyde |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
45 |
Hexachloroethane |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
46 |
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
47 |
Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
48 |
Methane dichloride |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
49 |
Methyl iodide |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
50 |
Methylcholanthrene, 3- |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
51 |
Methylchrysene, 5– |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
52 |
Methylenedianiline |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
53 |
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
54 |
Nickel |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
55 |
Nickel compounds |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
Nickel chloride |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
Nickel monoxide |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
58 |
Nickel sulfamate |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
59 |
Nickel sulfate |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
60 |
Nickel sulfate hexahydrate |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
61 |
Perchloroethylene |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
62 |
Polychlorinated biphenyls |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
63 |
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
64 |
Potassium chromate, as Cr6+ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
Propylene oxide |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
66 |
Silicon dioxide |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
67 |
Sodium dichromate, as Cr6+ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
Styrene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
69 |
Sulfuric acid |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
70 |
Talc (containing Asbestos) |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
71 |
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
72 |
Toluene diisocyanate
(mixed isomers) |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
73 |
Toluene diisocyanate, 2,4- |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
74 |
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
75 |
Trichloroethylene |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
76 |
Urethane |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
77 |
Vinyl chloride |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
Table 1: 77 Known Carcinogens at Study Site by Authority and On-Site TRI
Releases.
s.no
|
Chemical name |
Authorities |
TRI On-Site Releases |
|
||||||||||
IARC |
S.EPA
|
U.S. NIOSH
|
U.S. NTP | U.S. OSHA |
|
Air Fugitive |
Air Stack |
Air Total |
Land |
Water |
Under- ground d inj.
|
On-Site Total |
||
8 |
Totals |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
1,277,972
|
210,222 |
1,488,19 4 |
1,287 |
6,754 |
0 |
|
29 |
Cobalt |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
985 |
5,856 |
6,841 |
0 |
1,076 |
0 |
7,917 |
32 |
Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate [DEHP] |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
0 |
2,040 |
2,040 |
0 |
74 |
0 |
2,114 |
53 |
Naphthalene |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
22 |
33 |
55 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
57 |
54 |
Nickel |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
3,118 |
9,570 |
12,688 |
0 |
3,029 |
0 |
15,717 |
55 |
Nickel compounds |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
1,126 |
8,821 |
9,947 |
0 |
2,280 |
0 |
12,227 |
61 |
Perchloroethylene |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
1,272,26 0 |
176,522 |
1,448,78 2 |
0 |
295 |
0 |
1,449,07 7 |
63 |
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
0 |
0.10 |
0.10 |
1,285 |
0 |
0 |
1,285 |
69 |
Sulfuric acid |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
461 |
7,380 |
7,841 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7,841 |
Table 2: 8 Known TRI On-Site
Carcinogens at Study Site.
s.no |
Chemical name |
Known Human Carcinogens |
Documented Exposure
Sources |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Authorities |
On-Site |
County Ambient Air |
Other |
Pr |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
US EPA |
P&W |
US EPA |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEI |
T-II |
TRI |
NEI |
U.S. EPA TRI |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ACCGIH |
CA Proposition 65 |
DFG |
EPA |
IARC |
IRRST |
NIOSH |
New Jersey |
NTP |
OSHA |
All On-Site |
Safety data sheets |
NEI 2008 |
NEI-2011 |
NEI 2014 |
TIER-II |
TRI 1987-2010 |
Groundwater |
Soil |
Other |
All County |
EPA NEI 2008 |
EPA NEI-2011 |
EPA NEI 2014 |
EPA NEI Lbs. |
EPA TRI 1987-2010 |
TRI Lbs. |
Indoor Air Pollution |
Used in pesticides |
Dietary contamination |
High prd >1 mill. lbs. |
||
12 |
64 |
17 |
11 |
28 |
3 |
31 |
15 |
16 |
10 |
64 |
32 |
11 |
36 |
35 |
32 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
55 |
29 |
45 |
47 |
171,884.21 |
33 |
3,476,016.57 |
50 |
23 |
12 |
44 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Acetaldehyde |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
18,989.20 |
√ |
8,900.00 |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
2 |
Acrylonitrile |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
1,647.40 |
√ |
500.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
3 |
A-alpha-C |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Antimony |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
27.79 |
√ |
1,400.00 |
√ |
|
|
|
5 |
Antimony oxide |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
6 |
Aroclor 1260 |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
7 |
Arsenic |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
45.47 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
8 |
Asbestos |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
1,555.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
|
9 |
Benz(a)anthracene |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
3.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
Benzene |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
Benzo(a)pyrene |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
3.50 |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
12 |
Benzo(b)fluoranthene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
3.72 |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
13 |
Benzo(k)fluoranthene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
3.71 |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
14 |
Beryllium |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
Beryllium compounds |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
Butadiene, 1,3- |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
7,472 |
√ |
263,269.00 |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
17 |
CI Pig. Yellow 36, as Cr6+ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
Cadmium |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
85.49 |
√ |
7,967.00 |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
19 |
Cadmium oxide |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
Carbon black |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
21 |
Carbon tetrachloride |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
7.29 |
√ |
1,970.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
22 |
Cesium-137 |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
Chloroethane |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
70.86 |
√ |
1,380.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
24 |
Chloroform |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
43.07 |
√ |
152,390.00 |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
25 |
Chloromethane |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
55.66 |
√ |
1,132,296.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
26 |
Chromium (VI) & inorg. Cr6+ cmp |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
45.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
Chrysene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
3.12 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
28 |
Coal tar |
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
29 |
Cobalt |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
61.67 |
√ |
7,917.00 |
√ |
|
|
|
30 |
Cobalt (II) sulfate |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
Cumene [Styrofoam] |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
10.24 |
√ |
504.50 |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
32 |
DEHP |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
24.47 |
√ |
2,114.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
33 |
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
Dichlorobenzene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
30.74 |
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
35 |
Dichloroethane, 1,1- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
190.65 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
36 |
Dichloropropane, 1,2- |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
16.67 |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
37 |
Dichloropropene, 1,3- |
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.01 |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
38 |
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
Dioxane, 1,4- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
125.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
40 |
Ethyl acrylate |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
255 |
√ |
3,940.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
41 |
Ethylbenzene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
2,203.96 |
√ |
8,712.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
42 |
Ethylene dibromide |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.16 |
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
43 |
Ethylene dichloride |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
33.29 |
√ |
25,700.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
44 |
Formaldehyde |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
35,851.52 |
√ |
36,161.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
45 |
Hexachloroethane |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
46 |
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
2.49 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
47 |
Lead |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
11.889 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
48 |
Methane dichloride |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
81,248 |
√ |
125,437.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
49 |
Methyl iodide |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
.78 |
√ |
500.00 |
|
|
|
|
50 |
Methylcholanthrene, 3- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
Methylchrysene, 5– |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
Methylenedianiline |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
9,050.00 |
|
|
|
√ |
53 |
Naphthalene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
5,716 |
√ |
11.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
54 |
Nickel |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
882.38 |
√ |
13.00 |
√ |
|
|
|
55 |
Nickel compounds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
Nickel chloride |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
Nickel monoxide |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
Nickel sulfamate |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
Nickel sulfate |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
Nickel sulfate hexahydrate |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
61 |
Perchloroethylene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
515.21 |
√ |
1,449,077.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
62 |
PM10-Primarily diesel engines |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
1,200.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
Polychlorinated biphenyls |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.07 |
√ |
0.18 |
√ |
|
|
|
64 |
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
Potassium chromate, as Cr6+ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
66 |
Propylene oxide |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
258.68 |
√ |
181,935.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
67 |
Silicon dioxide |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
68 |
Sodium dichromate, as Cr6+ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
69 |
Styrene |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
1,936.54 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
70 |
Sulfuric acid |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
26,236.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
71 |
Talc (containing Asbestos) |
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
72 |
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
152.73 |
√ |
12,300.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
73 |
Toluene diisocyanate (mixed isomers) |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
.03 |
√ |
594.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
74 |
Toluene diisocyanate, 2,4- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
1,500.00 |
√ |
|
|
√ |
75 |
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
.01 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
76 |
Trichloroethylene |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
312.11 |
√ |
11,314.00 |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
77 |
Urethane |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
78 |
Vinyl chloride |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
1,022.33 |
|
|
√ |
|
|
√ |
Table 3: 76 Chemicals classified as known carcinogens
by one or more authorities found at study site (64) or county ambient air (55).
2.
Weir HK,
Anderson RN, Coleman King SM, Soman A, Thompson TD, et al. (2016) Heart disease
and cancer deaths -Trends and projections in the United States, 1969-2020. Prev
Chronic Dis 13: 160211.
14.
Christiani DC (2011) Combating environmental
causes of cancer. N Engl J Med 364: 791-793.
22.
Downey DC (1999) Porphyria and chemicals. Med
Hypotheses 53: 166-171.