1 / 10

Managing Risks at the State Level: Balancing Health Protection and Public Perception

This article explores the challenges and strategies in managing risks at the state level, focusing on the development and implementation of toxicity factors. It discusses the impact of "perfect data", uncertainty and variability, default procedures, and conflicting information on toxicity values. The article also highlights the need for effective risk communication and allocation of regulatory authority and resources. Case studies on natural gas processing facility emissions and formaldehyde exposure are presented. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of considering the ripple effects of decisions and improving risk communication to the public and policymakers.

zumwalt
Download Presentation

Managing Risks at the State Level: Balancing Health Protection and Public Perception

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing Risks at the State Level Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

  2. Different Perspectives • Developing a Toxicity Factor • “Perfect data” • Uncertainty/Variability • Default procedures/uncertainty factors • Drives toxicity values lower • “Implementing” a Toxicity Factor • Background levels • Screening levels become bright lines (10-6) • “Sound Bite” explanations don’t work well to counter media hype • Conflicting information/opinions • Regulatory authority and resources • Responding to public/legislative concerns

  3. Natural Gas Processing Facility 390 TPY VOCs 1.2 ppb Benzene annual average

  4. New Draft Arsenic SFo • Typical US dietary intake of inorganic arsenic >10-3 risk • Typical fish and seafood levels >10-4 risk (inorganic fraction; 2 meals/month) • Typical drinking water levels >10-3 risk • Typical levels in rice (average consumption of people who eat rice, inorganic fraction) >10-3 risk • Typical soil levels in Texas >10-4 risk

  5. 2005 NATA Preview • National Risk Driver – Formaldehyde • Based on Cal OEHHA – Rodent nasal carcinoma/LMS; Draft EPA value even more potent • I will get calls from media, concerned citizens, legislators, environmentalists for action • Annual average concentrations – 7 monitors; 1.9 – 4.5 ppb • Will push for more monitoring

  6. Reported normal human breath levels of formaldehyde (median – 97.5th percentile) presumably from endogenous production (Moser et al. 2005). Indoor and outdoor average concentrations and concentration ranges were based on values in IARC (2006). Outdoor average concentration ranges for the US and Texas were based on monitoring data.

  7. Acrolein • Ambient air monitoring program initiated at schools across the US • Acrolein will probably be a national issue

  8. Where Do We Put Our Resources? • New required monitoring – ozone, lead, NO2, SOx; probably CO, PM2.5 • Benzene • Formaldehyde • Acrolein • Arsenic • Our budget is shrinking

  9. Take Home • The ripple effects of decisions made during tox factor development can be staggering • We want to be health-protective, but we need to be real • We need to do a better job communicating risk and uncertainty to the public and to policy makers

More Related