2022 05-17 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

wATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH. ASS-ESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT xl. Conclusions MDH reached seven main conclusions regarding potential exposures to contaminants. from Water Gremlin, followed by next. step. s/recomme.ndations. Items: that MDH Will continue to address are described by the .Public Health Action Plan below. Conclusion 1: Past TCE air emissions may have harmed some people's health. Basis for Conclusion. l: It is possible that past :exposures to TCE 1n air near the facility m.ay have been sufficient to increase the risk of health effects in a small number of the most exposed individuals. However; TCE exposures may be too low to cause. any.observable health effects for most if not all people who lived or were regularly near the. Water Gremlin facility. The potential health effects of TCE exposure at the expected concentrations are an increased. risk of certain cancers (kidney, and possibly liver and non -Hodgkin's lymphoma), non -cancer effects to Ifnmune system and kidney, and a risk of heart defects.during fetal development. Increased cancer risk using a reasonable maximum exposure scenario.is.estimated to. be an additional 1.5 cases of cancer in:10,000 people (see Append ix C). MDH completed. an analysis of the data from the Minnesota Can.ce..r Reporting System and overall .cancer rates inthe Water Gremlin study area were virtually identical to cancer rates in the seven -county Twin Cities Metro area. M D H also evaluated congenital heart defects cases.from the.Birth Defects Information System and found that the observed numbers in the area surrounding Water Gremlin do not appear different from what is expected based -on prevalence estimates available for Minnesota:. Next Steps/Recommendations: MDH staff do not expect to see meaningful changes in cancer patterns and trends inthis community, especially over the short term. Nevertheless, due to the lag time between the time of highest TCE exposure and the possible occurrence of cancer, MDH would consider a. reanalysis of Minnesota Cancer Reporting System data in. the future: (e.g., 10 years) if the situation warrants it at that time and: community interest remains high. In response to questions. from community members and elected officials, MDH considered the: possibility of.co.nducting a health study to.add ress concerns about exposures to contamination from Water Gremlin but concluded that a scientifically valid health study is not feasible given the many challenges posed by such. efforts, especially when historical information necessary to estimate past exposures: does not exist. MDH.remains.ava.ilable to expfo.re and discuss what efforts may be feasible that may heIp.to meet the goals and objectives of the.community, Conclusion 23 Past orcurre.nt t-DCE and lead air emissions. are not expected to. harm people's health. Basis for Conclusion 2: The. outdoor air surrounding Water Gremlin is affected by use of t-DCE atthe facility: The t-DCE from Water Gremlin is expected to spread out in air surrounding the facility similarly to past TCE.emissions, although current use of t-DCE. is significantly lower than past use of TCE. Given the available air monitoring. data. from. sampling locations.on the Water Gremlin property, and what can be estimated from mode 11ng,.t-DCE.air concentrations were over the current chronic Risk Assessment Advice (RAA) value (20 µg/m3) beyond Water Grem 1iWs property boundary at times. In a very limited nurnber. of times. air concentrations were over the subchronIt RAA value.(WO µg/m3) for short durations. However, neitherthe chronic nor subchronic RAA were exceeded for a.length.of time that poses a health concern. Also; the air monitoring results represent locations on the Water Gremlin property.that are higher than actual exposures to.t-DCE (how much t-D.CE. enters the body through breathing) experienced by people in the community.. 5D