Tampilkan postingan dengan label Hexavalent chromium. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Hexavalent chromium. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 23 November 2010

The Time for a Hexavalent Chromium Safety Standard Is Now


EPA announced the release of the Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium in the September 30, 2010, Federal Register. This draft assessment is provided for public viewing and comment. Public comments received on the Toxicological Review during the public comment period will be provided to the external peer reviewers for their consideration. Any comments not received within the requested time period will be considered by EPA in their revisions. The deadline for comments is December 29, 2010.
EPA is conducting a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of hexavalent chromium that will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. 

Background

The draft Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to hexavalent chromium via ingestion. 

Chromium is a naturally occurring element in the earth’s crust. The three main forms of chromium found in the environment are chromium (0), chromium (III), and chromium (VI), also known as hexavalent chromium. Chromium is widely used in manufacturing processes, and it can be found in many consumer products such as wood treated with copper dichromate, leather tanned with chromic sulfate, and stainless steel cookware. Chromium is released to the environment from natural and anthropogenic sources, with the largest releases occurring from industrial sources. The general population may be exposed to chromium by inhaling ambient air, and ingesting food and drinking water containing chromium. Dermal exposure to chromium can occur from skin contact with certain consumer products or soils that contain chromium.

History/Chronology

Sep 1998
May 2010
EPA initiated an interagency science consultation to review the draft toxicological review and charge to external peer reviewers.
Sep 2010
EPA released the external review draft for public review and comment and the interagency science consultation review draft with comments. EPA also announced a public listening session to be held on November 18, 2010. [Federal Register Sep 30, 2010]
Nov 2010
EPA extended the public comment period an additional 30-days. [Federal Register Nov 10, 2010]

Next Steps

Following the conclusion of the public review and comment period, public listening session, and external peer review, the draft Toxicological Review will be revised and submitted for a final Agency review and an EPA-led Interagency Science Discussion. As a last step, the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS database.


Downloads

·      Charge to the External Reviewers (PDF)  (2 pp, 18 KB, about PDF)

Additional Information

Comments on the assessment may be submitted and reviewed using the e-Government Regulations.gov Web site. From the site, select “Environmental Protection Agency” and the keyword “EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0540” (for the docket ID) to comment on this report.

Citation

U.S. EPA. IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (External Review Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-10/004A, 2010.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which supports a proposed Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) in drinking water.

Delay
Industry groups, American Chemistry Council (ACC) has requested a delay in implementation. ACC  requested even more studies to determine whether CR6 is indeed safe.
Some have indicated that the chromium industry have withheld data concerning the safety of CR6. Experts have already confirmed that CR6 is very dangerous to humans, “Faced with the threat of stronger regulation, the chromium industry initiated an effort to challenge the scientific evidence supporting a more protective [OSHA workplace] standard [for inhalation]. This effort included the use of “product defense” consultants [Exponent and ChemRisk] to conduct post hoc analyses of a publicly-funded study to challenge results viewed unfavorably by the industry” (Michaels et al, 2006). Recent reports have indicated that US troops have allegedly become sickened from exposure to CR6 in Iraq and Afghanistan from burn pit exposures.

There appears  to be no valid reason to delay further the implementation of CR6 safety standards by EPA. 


Jumat, 03 September 2010

National Guard Veterans Allowed to Proceed Against KBR

A US District Court Judge in Oregon has ruled that national guard veterans will be allowed to proceed in a suit against KBR (Kellog Brown and Root) for their exposure exposure to sodium dichromate and resultant hexavalent chromium poisoning while stationed as Oregon National Guardsmen in Iraq and assigned to duty at the Qarmat Ali water plant in 2003. The soldiers allege serious injuries and adverse health effects because of their exposure to sodium dischromate at the Qarmat Ali plant

KBR entered into a contract with the US Military to provide logistical support during the Iraq conflict. The injured soldiers alleged that KRB was negligent and committed fraud in connection with the provision of services under the contract.

In Court permitted the claim to go forward against KBR for the soldiers, "...exposure to sodium dichromate and resultant hexavalent chromium poisoning while stationed as Oregon National Guardsmen in Iraq and assigned to duty at the Qarmat Ali water plant in 2003 [for the failure of KBR to take] precautions to safeguard personnel who might potentially be exposed to environmental hazards at worksites, including the wearing of protective gear and/or the closing down of operations at any unsafe site."  

The Court held,"Defendants here assert that their "provision of engineering and logistical support services at Qarmat Ali" took place pursuant to the specifications of a contract with the government, and that they did not exceed their authority under those specifications. On this basis, defendants argue that they were merely "executing the will of the United States" and are entitled to the benefits of derivative sovereign immunity. The evidentiary record belies both of defendants' assertions."

lawsuit is currently pending against Kellog Brown & Root (KBR) and Halliburton on behalf of soldiers who were exposed to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Click here to read more about burn pit claims for benefits and lawsuits. Call Jon L. Gelman at 973.696.7900 or e-mail jon@gelmans.com






Related articles