United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region ft         EPA/905/9-91 -016
230 Soutn Dearborn Street  May 1991
Chicago, Illinois 69694
A Risk Analysis of Twenty-six
Environmental Problems
                     Summary Report




-------
UNTIED STATES ENVZROMENEAL FROTECTICW AGENCY
                    REGION 5
              A RISK ANALYSIS OF


      WEN1Y-SIX ENVIHCWMEN1RL PROBLEMS
            U S. Environmental Protection Ag*flcy
            fteglon 5, Library (PL-12J)
            77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th
                    II  60604-3590
                   MAY 1991
                                                       Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                   PREFACE


Region 5 has recently undertaken risk-based strategic planning to determine
the nest appropriate long-term approaches to address our environmental
problerrs.  We conducted a comparative risk analysis of 26 environmental
problems to provide us with a technical basis for targeting our activities and
resources.  EPA's 1987 report, "Unfinished Business:  A Oamparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems," which determined the relative risks nationwide,
provided the framework for the Regional study.  We are pleased to provide the
results of our comparative risk analysis which is currently being used to
identify our risk reduction priorities.

The 26 environmental problems were characterized for human health and
ecological risk and placed into four broad risk groupings.  Several important
findings and conclusions were determined.

  •   Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes, are at high
      risk due to destruction of wildlife habitats and impacts from toxic
      chemicals.

  •   High risk problems were often found to coincide with limited EPA or
      other Federal/State regulatory authority.  For example, indoor air
      pollution from radon and other chemicals yielded very high human health
      risks, yet we have limited regulatory authority to reduce such risks.

  •   Analysis of the environmental problems revealed that risks are often not
      confined to one problem area, control program, medium, or agency.  We
      need new interprogrammatic and interagency efforts to effectively
      control risks.

  •   We need to do further research, collect more data, and develop new
      methods to characterize risks.  In particular, additional methods are
      needed to assess ecological risks.  Environmental monitoring to measure
      the success of risk reduction programs implemented by EPA is also
      required.

Our comparative risk study provides a scientific basis for developing policy
level, long-term strategic plans.  While it is not an exhaustive risk
assessment of each of the environmental problems, it identifies which problems
pose the greatest threats to our environment.  This information allows us to
prioritize our risk reduction activities and best direct our resources.

For more information about the Region's comparative risk activities, contact
the Office of Public Affairs, Comparative Risk Project, 230 South Dearborn
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
                                  Valdas V. AdamJa
                                  Regional

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS







                                                                Page



I.    Introduction                                               1



II.   Environmental Problem Areas Analyzed                       2



III.  Risk Assessment Process                                    3



IV.   Risk Ranking Process                                       4



V.    Results



            Water Division                                       6



            Waste Management Division                            9



            Environmental Sciences Division                     13



            Air and Radiation Division                          15



            Planning and Management Division                    22



VI.   Major Conclusions and Recommendations                     23

-------
                     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   REGION 5
                            RISK ASSESSMENT PROJECT
Introduction

A wide variety of human activity causes risks to human health and the ecology,
including  environmental  pollution  from  manufacturing  and  transportation,
workplace  activities,  behavior  (i.e.,  diet,  smoking)  and  recreation (i.e.,
sports).   While the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the major
responsibility to control the risks from environmental pollution, EPA's resources
must  be  used effectively.   EPA has used  many different management tools to
address environmental problems.  This administration has encouraged the Regions
to use risk analysis to help identify which EPA programs need to be expanded or
adjusted to address the risks not yet managed by environmental programs.  Region
5 has special environmental characteristics which differentiate the Region from
others in the country.  In particular, Region 5 has unique ecosystems  such as the
Great  Lakes  and  prairies,  extensive  agriculture,  and  a high  degree  of
manufacturing and urbanization.  Therefore,  the environmental risks within Region
5 require a different level of management effort and approach than used in other
Regions.

Region 5's risk analyses  were specifically done to capture  the uniqueness of
environmental problems found within the Region.  These risk analyses will assist
in the development of  better environmental approaches to manage risks.   On a
parallel track, an analysis of the risks facing Great Lakes is being conducted.

During  the summer of 1990,  EPA  Region  5 completed a risk  analysis of 26
environmental  problem areas  for  health  and environmental  impacts.     The
environmental  problems included point  and non-point pollution of  lakes and
rivers,  drinking water contamination,  waste management, accidental chemical
releases, pesticides, air pollution, and physical degradation of environmental
habitats.  The analyses were based upon the risks which remain despite  current
regulatory controls. Therefore, the risks which are currently being managed were
not assessed in the risk analyses.

The problem area risk  analyses were accomplished following  methods similar to
those used in Unfinished Business, a risk project conducted by EPA in 1987.
Final rankings were approved by Region 5 program managers after review and input
by the State Environmental Directors.

All ten EPA Regions have begun comparative risk assessment projects.  Regional
and State program managers will begin using the results of the risk analyses this
fall to adjust some of the activities already planned for FY 91 and to develop
implementation plans  for FY 92.   During  the next  few months we  will begin
dialogue with  the  States  to develop a  Region 5  strategic plan for FY 93 and
ultimately a 4 year strategy for FY 94 - 97.  The risk analyses will be one tool
used  in  shaping these strategic plans.   We will  also need to examine  risk
management issues, national strategies,  congressional mandates,  environmental
statutes, and other Agency commitments.

With the EPA decision-making process based increasingly on risk, risk assessment
projects provide a means to assist  in the identification of regional priorities
for risk reduction,  and thus permit effective environmental risk  management.
This report presents the results of the comparative risk project conducted in
Region 5.

-------
Report Content and Organization

This report includes a listing of the environmental problem areas analyzed and
discussions of the risk assessment and risk ranking processes.  A discussion of
the environmental  problem areas  and  rankings by each media program  is then
presented followed by conclusions and recommendations.


Environmental Problem Areas

Twenty-two significant problems were identified for evaluation by all Regions.
In addition, three optional  problem areas could be evaluated.   These problem
areas are listed below.
Problem Areas (Primary)

   1. Industrial Wastewater Discharges to Lakes and Rivers
   2. Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Lakes and Rivers
   3. Non-point Source Discharges to Lakes and Rivers
   4. Aggregated Public and Private Drinking Water Supplies
   5. Aggregated Ground-Water Contamination
   6. Physical Degradation of Water and Wetland Habitats
   7. Storage Tanks
   8. Managed (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Sites
   9. Hazardous Waste Sites — Abandoned/Superfund Sites
  10. Municipal Solid Waste Sites
  11. Industrial Solid Waste Sites
  12. Accidental Chemical Releases to the Environment
  13. Pesticides
  14. Sulfur Oxides and Nitrogen Oxides (including Acid Deposition)
  15. Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
  16. Airborne Lead
  17. Particulate Matter
  18. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
  19. Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon
  20. Indoor Radon
  21. Radiation other than Radon
  22. Physical Degradation of Terrestrial Ecosystems/Habitats


optional Problem Areas (Headquarters)

    1. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
    2. C02 and Global Warming
    3. Odor and Noise Pollution

Region 5 chose to evaluate two of the proposed optional problem areas.  A partial
analysis  of noise  was conducted  under Physical  Degradation of Terrestrial
Ecosystems/Habitats.  In addition, Region 5 added two problem areas:

Additional Problem Areas (Regional)

   1. Lead
   2. Chemical Control Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)

-------
Ihe lead problem area considered risks from exposure to lead from sources other
than airborne lead, such as lead in soils or historical  lead in house paints.
Worker Exposure to Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  (PCBs) was the only portion of the
TSCA problem area that currently could be ranked,  as information on the risks of
other chemicals, after TSCA regulation, was not available.  Further work on the
TSCA problem area is underway.  Risks from asbestos, while  regulated by TSCA,
were included under the Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon problem area, due
to the original definitions used in the problem area.

Numerous approaches were used in defining the 26 problem areas.  Some problems
were defined on a chemical or stressor basis,  others on the sources of pollution
(discharges to lakes and rivers; primary problem areas 1, 2, and 3),  and still
others on  the ecosystem affected  (i.e.,  Physical Degradation of  Terrestrial
Ecosystems/Habitats). In addition,  disaggregation of certain problem areas, such
as for ambient air pollutants (problems 14 through 18), may give artificially low
risks as compared to  indoor air  (problem 19).  Finally, portions of some problem
areas (i.e.,  Pesticides) were included in other problem areas  (i.e., Indoor Air).
Therefore, it should be recognized that given the differences among 26 problem
areas, the lack of uniformity may have influenced the resulting risk analyses and
rankings.  While a better approach  would have been to characterize the risks by
endpoints, for  consistency across Regions,  the  problem areas,  as  identified
above, were examined.  As development of the risk assessment process progresses,
problems will be defined by endpoints.


Risk Assessment Process

In order to  coordinate the evaluation of all  the problem  areas, a  Technical
Steering Ccmmittee consisting of scientists from each of the major program areas
was formed.  Technical guidance on the risk assessment process was provided by
the Planning and Management Division.   For health and ecological analyses, the
guidelines below were followed:

      • When available, health  risks were derived from environmental data
      and  measurements  of exposed populations rather  than on  modeled
      estimations.

      • Average human health risks were derived by weighting the risks for
      populations exposed to ranges in chemical contaminants.  Risks were
      not computed based upon the maximally exposed individual.

      • Chemicals or case studies were used which were most representative
      of the risks posed by the problem areas.

      • A  risk assessment  procedure consisting of toxicity assessment,
      exposure assessment,  and risk characterization was applied.   EPA
      cancer potency factors and reference doses  for non-cancer effects
      were used.

      • Risk analyses were based on current  risks  with the  exception of
      Accidental Chemical Releases, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, 2 and
      Global  Warming, which were based upon  future risks.

      • Uncertainties in the  risk analyses,  including  data gaps, were
      identified.

-------
Problem areas were assigned to the appropriate Divisions for cxfftpletion of the
human health,  ecological,  and  economic impact analyses.   Draft papers were
circulated internally  and  to the States for  review and comment.   The States
provided very good insights which resulted  in adjustments  to the problem area
papers and rankings.  The problem area papers remain as drafts and form the basis
of the rankings developed in this report.


Risk Ranking Process

A health and ecological ranking process which closely followed the methodology
utilized in Unfinished Business was used for  all 26 problem areas.   The basic
elements of the ranking methodology were:

      • Problem  areas were ranked  in  one  of  four risk levels;   high,
      medium-high, medium-low and low for cancer risk, non-cancer adverse
      health risks, overall health risk, and ecological risk categories.

      • Approximately one order of magnitude, or a ten fold difference in
      risk, separated each of the four levels.

      • The cancer ranking level was driven by the number of potential
      cancer cases derived from risk calculations.   Non-cancer rankings
      were based upon  the size  of the  population exposed and the health
      effects of the pollutants. The overall health risk score was based
      upon the highest of either the cancer or non-cancer risk score.

      • Ecological risk rankings were determined by three factors:  (1) the
      magnitude  of stressor  effects on ecosystems;  (2)  the potential
      reversibility of the ecosystem impacts induced by the stressors; and
      (3) the size of the ecosystem affected relative to the total area of
      the specific type of ecosystem in Region 5.

      • Some of the environmental problems areas were not ranked for human
      health  or  ecological  risks  because  not all  problem  areas  have
      significant  or  quantifiable  impacts  to human  health  or  the
      environment. Specifically, Physical Degradation of Water and Wetland
      Habitats, was  believed not to have  direct human health impacts.
      Aggregated Drinking Water, Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon,
      Indoor Radon, and Worker  Exposure to  PCBs had no known ecological
      impacts.  Problem areas with possible  ecological risks not assessed
      included    Aggregated   Ground-water,   Airborne   Lead,    Lead
      (soils/paints), Particulate Matter, and Radiation other than Radon.

It is important to note that the underlying risk analysis,  which was the basis
for the final  rankings,  was semi-quantitative in nature.   In some instances,
sufficient data were not available and best professional  judgement was required.
However, reasonable confidence exists in the rankings assigned to the 26 problem
areas.  Although  new data  could change the rankings, it is  unlikely  that any
change would be greater than one risk level grouping.

In August 1990, the risk ranking results were discussed in a meeting with the
State Environmental Agency  Directors.  Based upon their input,  further study was
undertaken in several problem areas, resulting in the change of some rankings.
Other problem areas were clarified.   For example, high human health risks from
indoor air versus moderately high  human health risks  found for ambient air
pollutants  is likely  the  result of aggregation versus disaggregation.   The

-------
interaction and open communication with the States affirmed some utility of risk
assessment as a planning tool.


In  the following  section,  summaries and rankings  from  the  Water,  Waste,
Environmental Sciences, Air and Radiation, and Planning and Management Divisions
are presented.

-------
                               HATER DIVISION
Relative Risk
High


Medium High
Medium low



low
Risk Not Assessed/No
Known Impacts
Human Health



Nonpoint Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters
Aggregated Groundwater
Contamination
Aggregated Public and
Private Drinking Water
Supplies
Industrial Point Source
Dischargers to Surface
Waters
Municipal Point Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters

Physical Degradation of
Water and Wetlands
Habitat
Ecological
Nonpoint Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters
Municipal Point Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters
Physical Degradation of
Water and Wetlands
Habitat
Industrial Point Source
Discharges to Surface
Waters





Aggregated Groundwater
Contamination
Aggregated Public and
Private Drinking Water
Supplies
Problem Area Summaries

#1.,  #2., #3.    industrial,  Municipal,  and  Nonpoint Source  Discharges  to
      Surface Waters.  The Division combined the above three problem areas into
      one assessment, and then attributed the impacts to the various sources for
      use in the relative ranking process.  Included in the assessment are all
      of the effects associated with the chemical and biological discharges to
      surface waters.  Hie human health risk was driven by  the  consumption of
      contaminated sport fish.  Specifically, PCB (xsntamination was responsible
      for the majority of the risk.  The ecological risk was driven by nonpoint
      sources such as nutrient laden runoff from agricultural areas, release of
      toxic materials  from contaminated sediments and the deposition of toxic
      compounds from the atmosphere.  Nonpoint sources impacted approximately

-------
      50-80% of the overall impaired waters in Region 5.  Municipal sources were
      determined to  be a higher  risk to  ecosystems  than industrial  sources
      because of the likelihood of the discharge of nutrients in addition  to
      toxic compounds and because of the impacts of combined  sewer  overflows.
      However, industrial  point  discharges still  have  significant  aquatic
      impacts in a number of locations within Region 5.   In combination, both
      nonpoint and point discharges still have significant impacts  on surface
      waters.  Federal  and State data indicate that  70% of waters along the
      Great  Lakes  coastline are  not fully  supporting designated  uses.    In
      addition, it is estimated that 30% of the stream and river miles have some
      degree of impairment.

#4.   Aggregated Public and Private Drinking Water Supplies.  This area includes
      all risks  to humans  and the environment  attributable to  water as  it
      appears  at the tap.   Although some  ecological risks may exist from
      practices such as adding corrosion controlling chemicals during drinking
      water  treatment,   these risks  were assumed to  be  minimal  and not
      quantitatively evaluated during  this  exercise.  The risks to human health
      were  driven  by   the  threat  of  methemoglobinemia  due  to   nitrate
      contamination of groundwater supplies.  It should be noted that although
      the area ranked medium low in the overall exercise, that high risks can
      occur in specific populations and that detailed information  on private
      water supplies does not exist.

#5.   Physical Degradation of Water and Wetland Habitat.  This  area evaluates
      the risks to humans  and the environment  due to the filling,  diking and
      draining of  wetlands, the  channelization of streams  and rivers, the
      construction of dams and similar physical disruptions to wet habitat.   It
      is  estimated that over eighty-seven  percent of  the  original  wetland
      habitat in the Region has been  lost.  The remaining wetlands are being
      lost at an unacceptable  rate due to increased development in urban and
      rural areas.  Although physical disturbances to these habitats may result
      in a risk  to human health,  the  threat could not be quantified  for this
      analysis.   The risk  to ecological  systems was driven by the  loss  of
      wetland  habitat,   although  other  less quantifiable  impacts,  such  as
      channelization and siltation are also recognized as ecological threats.

#6.   Aggregated Groundwater Contamination.  This area addresses all  risks  to
      humans and the environment due to the tainting of groundwater.  Although
      only fifty percent of the Regional population gets drinking water from the
      ground, over eighty percent of the cancer risk  and nearly all of noncancer
      risks  associated  with   drinking water  supplies  are  associated with
      groundwater supplies.  Nitrate  contamination  again drives the  risks  to
      human health.  As identified above,  even though the risk to  the entire
      Region is identified as medium low,  risks to specific populations may  be
      high.   Because the exact nature and  extent of groundwater-surface water
      interactions in the Region is unknown, it was impossible to quantitatively
      assess the ecological risks associated with contaminated groundwater.   It
      is known, however, that  contaminated groundwater does exert  an adverse
      influence on specific areas in the Region, and needs to be evaluated more
      comprehensively.


Conclusions

      In general, the analysis provided the expected results.  Areas where the
      Agency possesses clear authority to address problems pose  lower risks  to

-------
humans and the environment than those areas where there is no authority to
address problems.   For  example,  the Clean Water Act establishes  more
restrictive requirements for Industrial  Discharges  than for  Municipal
Discharges, and the associated risks are  generally lower.   It  should be
noted  that the  analytical  framework used  in  this  exercise  generally
undervalued impacts associated with groundwater contamination.   Because
this exercise used current risk  as  its  index, groundwater contaminant
plumes were frozen in place and further risks (e.g.,  from drinking water
consumption) were not evaluated.  Also, impacts on the aquifer itself were
not evaluated unless the water was  consumed by  humans or  impacted an
ecosystem above ground.

The analysis was a useful reflection on how the Region,  and the Agency,
sets management objectives,  and evaluates success for its programs.   The
Region does not operate the vast majority  of the regulatory programs
itself, but has  delegated those responsibilities to State  agencies and
oversees State implementation activities.  The data associated with day to
day implementation of  most  programs,  therefore, does not reside at the
Regional offices.  To  conduct this assessment,  the data relied upon was
contained in National data systems and in  special reports.  Most of these
data systems  are administrative in nature, designed to  assess  whether a
facility is compliant or noncompliant, to provide descriptive data or to
see if a permit is effective or expired. Most of our data systems are not
analytic systems designed to provide environmental results.  The data and
management systems that exist are  adequate to measure success in terms of
meeting statutory obligations and  programmatic measures, but provide only
a minimal database to support a risk based analysis.

There  has been great  success in controlling the pollution of surface
waters and the delivery of safe drinking water.  However the need for an
enhanced  ability to evaluate how our existing programs  are  meeting
environmental objectives, and a mechanism to optimize the environmental
impact was  identified.
                                   8

-------
                           WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Relative Risk
High
Medium High
Medium Lew
Low
Risk Not Assessed
Human Health
Accidental Chemical
Releases to the
Environment
Lead
Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites
Industrial Solid Waste
Sites
Storage Tanks
Active Hazardous Waste
Facilities
Municipal Solid Waste
Sites

Ecological
Accidental Chemical
Releases to the
Environment
Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites
Active Hazardous Waste
Facilities
Storage Tanks
Industrial Solid Waste
Sites
Municipal Solid Waste
Sites
Lead
Problem Area Summaries

#7.   storage  Tanks.    Storage tanks risks  include  primarily  leaks  from
      underground storage tanks (USTs)  with some consideration of above ground
      tank leaks.  There are more than 340,000-regulated USTs  in the Region.
      Greater than 12,000 are  reported leaking underground tanks  (LUSTs).
      Underreporting is  assumed due to the absence of monitoring standards.
      National averages estimate that there are 38,000 - 115,000 LUSTs in the
      Region,with about 45 percent of LUSTs contaminating ground water.

      Human health risk is due to potential ingestion of gasoline in drinking
      water resulting  in toxicity to  the bladder, kidney,  liver and lungs.
      However, the low taste and odor threshold for  gasoline means  that few
      people  drink contaminated water for  long.   Safe Drinking Water  Act
      standards should prevent significant exposure through  large public water
      systems.  The ecological risk is due to impairment of  rivers and streams
      and contamination  of  subsurface soils and  ground water,  impacts  not
      counted by the ecological risk method used by the Region.

#8.   Active Hazardous Waste Facilities.  Active hazardous  waste  facilities
      include active management units, generators,  and solid waste management
      units (SWMUs) subject to corrective action.  There are greater than 54,000
      generators, 1,000 active  facilities and 1,300 SWMUs  projected to  need
      corrective action.

      Monitoring and corrective action for operating units minimize potential
      risks even if units fail.  Health risk is due to potential  ingestion of
      contaminated groundwater.  Ecological risk due to impacted surface waters
      and wetlands result in  habitat  alteration, reduced species diversity and
      decreased  productivity of wetlands.  Primary contamination  from past

-------
      practices are  subsurface soils and  ground water, not  assessed by  the
      ecological  risk method  vised  by the  Region.   Very little  data  has
      historically been collected on ecological damages around RCRA facilities.

#9.   Abandoned Hazardous Waste  Sites.   Ihis problem area  includes  abandoned
      waste sites  subject  to remediation under  Federal Superfund or  similar
      state laws,  replacing contaminated resources and cleaning up the source of
      contamination.   Ihe Region has about 6,200 sites of which  an  estimated
      2,960 sites are projected to require some remediation.  Cleanups have been
      completed at very few sites to date.

      Health risk is  due to potential ingestion of contaminated water resulting
      in potentially significant cancer and non-cancer risks,  depending on the
      chemicals involved and their concentrations.  However,  a relatively  low
      number of people are exposed at the highest risk sites.   Ecological risk
      due to leachate and runoff impair wetlands and surface waters,  resulting
      in  alteration  of  biological  communities.   Other  contamination  from
      Superfund  sites are  subsurface  soils and  ground water,  damages  not
      assessed by the ecological risk method used by the Region.

#10.  Municipal Solid Waste Sites.  Municipal solid waste sites include active
      and closed municipal landfills and incinerators.   Only active facilities
      were considered in the assessment due to data limitations.  Regulations on
      hazardous waste substantially limit the amounts of hazardous constituents
      going to municipal landfills.  However, no data on actual releases for the
      Region's  1,000 active  and more than 1,900 inactive  facilities were
      available.  Estimates were derived by adjusting national figures.

      Health risk due to potential ingestion  of contaminated water results in a
      variety of cancer and non-cancer risks.  Typical location in rural areas
      limits potentially exposed populations.  Only low concentrations of toxics
      have been observed in leachates in recent years.  Ecological risk limited
      to  local areas around  facilities.   Impacts on  local  wetlands can be
      significant due to pollutant loadings.  Impairment of ground water are not
      counted  by the ecological risk method used by  the Region.   Municipal
      landfills  can  significantly damage ground  water guality  due to  high
      concentrations of conventional contaminants.

#11.  Industrial Solid Waste Sites.  Industrial solid waste sites include active
      and  closed non-hazardous  industrial solid waste landfills  and  surface
      impoundments, including demolition landfills, land application facilities,
      and  mining waste  sites.   EPA  has very  little  information  on  these
      facilities due to focus on hazardous waste  and lack of Federal authority.
      The number of facilities in the Region is highly uncertain,  ranging from
      3,420 to 6,380. States report only 123  industrial landfills  (exclusive of
      Illinois and Wisconsin, not available).

      Superfund  and  active  hazardous waste corrective  action programs  may
      capture  most facilities with significant  contaminant releases.   Health
      risk is from potential ingestion of contaminated groundwater.  Ecological
      risk is due to impairment of wetlands from toxic chemical discharge.

#12.  Accidental  Chemical  Releases to  the Environment.  Accidental chemical
      releases  include  spills of oil  and chemicals from pipelines,  vessels,
      fixed facilities, and other sources.  Category encompasses wide range of
      releases,  from routine small  spills  to "low probability,  high  impact"
      catastrophic events.  Most accidental releases are small spills that are

                                        10

-------
      cleaned up with negligible damage.  About 9200 spills occur per year in
      the Region.  Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Cincinnati  account for 23
      percent of all releases.

      Both human health and ecological  risks are based on a  low probability,
      high consequence occurrence,  e.g., core meltdown and loss of containment
      at a nuclear power plant, or potential catastrophic releases from chemical
      plants and storage areas.  Either would possibly produce high risk chronic
      effects, relating to  long term health effects,  loss of food  production
      capabilities and loss of flora and fauna.

Additional #1. Lead.  No individual program addresses all non-occupational lead
      exposures.    Lead  exposure  from  urban  soils,   contaminated  by  air
      deposition, paints,  other sources, and Superfund sites is included in this
      problem  area.    Lead exposure occurring through air from  gasoline,
      smelters, other sources,  and drinking water are not included.   Elevated
      blood lead concentrations are attributed primarily to inhalation/ingestion
      of household dust.   Lead in dust is suspected to originate from paints and
      from soils contaminated by air deposition.  Significant soil lead levels
      are found in many urban locations in Region 5.

      Health  risks  from  elevated  blood  lead levels  in  children  includes
      neurological damage and anemia.  No ecological risks were assessed.

Conclusions

      The comparative risk analysis of Waste Management problem indicated
      that  sufficient data was not available  which would  permit  an
      accurate assessment  of health and ecological risks.  More geographic
      information on the distribution of risk in Region 5 was also needed.
      In terms  of health, the  maximum  exposed individual is often the
      primary concern of  the  program.   In addition, it has been assumed
      for most of the problem areas,  that contaminated groundwater which
      gets to public water  supplies  serving more than 3,300 people will
      pose a  zero risk, because frequent monitoring is required.   This
      means a discounting of groundwater contamination on the basis of a
      reduced number of receptors.   This is a valid argument  for a study
      of current risks, but  may not be a valid argument for not investing
      additional  resources  for cleanup,  or  evaluating  the  problems
      associated with prolonged chemical impacts.

      Ecological effects  was  an area with little information currently
      available. An increased emphasis should be placed on evaluation and
      protection of ecosystems. Particularly those impacted by abandoned
      hazardous waste sites.    Ecological risk assessment was  severely
      hindered by  the unavailability  of information  on  the type  and
      population of the exposed species, its stability, the chemicals it
      is exposed to,  and the duration of the exposures around industrial
      facilities.

      Based on  the  above  conclusions,  the following  general  program
      recommendations are  proposed: Use  of a computerized mapping system
      to view the geographic  distribution of  sites to target   actions
      based  on  site and population  density;  further  evaluation  of
      groundwater quality in  the Region;  further study to validate  the
      assumptions on the  quality of drinking  water;  development of  an
      outreach program for lead in the soils to inform people in areas of

                                        11

-------
high lead contamination of the potential dangers,  particularly for
children; and  development of methods  to increase the  Division's
knowledge of ecological impacts.
                                  12

-------
                       ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
Relative Risk
High
Medium High
Medium Low
LDW
No Known Impacts
Human Health

Pesticides
Worker Exposure to
PCBs/TSCA


Ecological

Pesticides


Worker Exposure to
PCBs/TSCA
Problem Area Summaries

#13.  Pesticides.  Pesticides covers risks to humans  and the environment from
      application, runoff and residues.  Assessment of the problem ranged from
      consideration of low-level exposure to a large  number of individuals to
      relatively high-level  exposure  to a small  number of  individuals.   For
      example,  residues  in  food are  a low-level  exposure  for the  general
      population; whereas inhalation and dermal exposure to pesticides may be at
      high levels for applicators.  A  small proportion of the total number of
      pesticides registered  was analyzed:   only 6 to 10  of the  600  active
      ingredients registered, creating  a fairly high level of uncertainty in the
      total analysis.  However, there was a high level  of confidence in the risk
      and exposure numbers for the specific pesticides analyzed.

      Health risk  is  driven by dietary  exposures resulting in cancer risks,
      although neurological and other  non-cancer  effects were significant for
      applicators.   Ecological  risk  is due  to  the  large geographic  area
      impacted.   In addition  to agricultural ecosystem effects,  pesticides
      impair  adjacent  ecosystems  through  non-target  species  impacts  and
      contaminated runoff.

Additional #2.  Toxic Substance Control Act, including Worker Exposure to PCBs.
      Ihe Toxic Substance Control Act  (TSCA) is a prevention mechanism used for
      the regulation of chemicals before they enter the environment. TSCA also
      regulates  chemicals   after  they  have  entered  the   environment.
      Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCBs) are directly regulated  under TSCA and
      result in quantifiable human health impacts.

      Worker exposure to  PCBs involves  occupational exposure principally in the
      use and handling of certain types of electrical equipment.  Even though
      PCBs are no longer manufactured,  the potential for occupational  exposure
      still exists with PCB containing  transformers and capacitors remaining in
      use.  Because information on exposure is  limited, this study was limited
      to worker exposures in activities involving routine maintenance  of PCB-
      contaminated transformers,  repair of casings  and clean-up  of  spills
      resulting in  inhalation and  dermal  contact.   Health risk due to  PCB
      exposure includes cancer and  effects on  the liver.  It should be noted
      that ecological  risks associated  with PCBs  are accounted for in  the
      Accidental Releases problem area and,  for PCB-contaminated sediments,  in
      the Non-point Source problem area.
                                        13

-------
Conclusions
      One of the major observations made as a result of the comparative risk
      exercise and the analysis of the pesticides topic, has been the rate and
      level of change currently taking place in all phases of pesticide use and
      regulation.  Agriculture in 1990 is very different from five years ago and
      will  continue to  change as methods  of  pest  control  evolve,  and  as
      pollution prevention  requirements take effect.   Farming practices  are
      changing due  to advances in knowledge  about  the  effects of runoff  and
      erosion on ecosystems.   These  impacts are of particular concern in the
      Great Takes Basin.  Fewer products are available.  In 1989,  EPA canceled
      20,000 product registrations  as a result of 1988 amendments to the Federal
      Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.  Certain pesticides which were
      extremely effective are no longer available because  the risks outweighed
      benefits and  have been restricted or  canceled.    Pesticide users  are
      learning to use alternatives with lower risks in managing  pest control
      problems.

      Region 5 agriculture has a unique position in the United States.  Although
      only  one of ten Regions,  approximately 19%  of the U.S. population is
      concentrated in the Region, and approximately 20-25% of the agricultural
      activity in  the United  States  takes  place in  Region 5.    The Regional
      Office plays a cooperative role in monitoring the use of pesticides and
      utilizes frequent opportunities to share  information on pesticides with
      communities and States and to inform Headquarters of Regional activities.

      The analysis of risks  from the use of pesticides  in Region 5 revealed that
      there  is relatively  little current  information  on pesticide  usage,
      particularly  on  specialty  crops.    Apparently no  systematic way  of
      gathering  such  information exists.    This  data   is critical to  the
      evaluation of  exposure,  and eventually to risk characterization.  During
      the comparative risk project, many topics were explored with potential for
      risk reduction in the future if additional information can be gathered.

      EPA is developing programs for protection  of workers, endangered species,
      and groundwater from pesticides, which will require a number of specific
      activities over the next few years.   These programs were  developed to
      evaluate, monitor and  reduce  exposure to  pesticides with the overall
      objective of reducing risk to human health and the environment.  A number
      of  areas either currently  under  investigation or  which will require
      further  study to determine better methods of  reducing risk, include the
      use  of pesticides  in residential  lawn care and  golf courses,  insect
      repellents, and wetlands.  Integration of  Toxic Release  Inventory data
      with  pesticide production information  is being developed  to determine
      possible "hot spots" as  enforcement targets, and ways to apply information
      gathered in the Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study to reduce indoor
      exposure to pesticides.

      TSCA  is a pollution prevention tool, keeping harmful  chemicals out of the
      market place to prevent  them from ever entering the environment.  As such,
      most  negative impacts of these chemicals  are prevented  from occurring.
      However, chemicals already in the environment do create risks.  The bulk
      of  the data  that is needed to support  our analysis of  this  risk is
      available only at Headquarters.   Because  of the lack of availability of
      this  information to  the Regions, and the  fact  that  much  of  it is
      Confidential Business Information, this problem  area could be ranked only
      for the Worker Exposure to PCBs component.

                                         14

-------
                         AIR AND RADIATION DIVISION
 Relative Risk
Human Health
Ecological
 High
Indoor Air Pollutants
other than Radon

Indoor Radon

Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion  	
CO2 and Global Warming

Hazardous/Toxic Air
Pollutants

Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion      	
 Medium High
Hazardous/Toxic Air
Pollutants

Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide

Radiation other than
Radon

Sulfur Oxides and
Nitrogen Oxides
 (including Acid
Deposition)   	
Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide

Sulfur Oxides and
Nitrogen Oxides
(including Acid
Deposition)
 Medium Low
Airborne Lead

Particulate Matter
 Low
 Risk Not Assessed/No
 Known Impacts
CO2 and Global Warming
Airborne Lead

Indoor Air Pollutants
other than Radon

Indoor Radon

Particulate Matter

Radiation other than
Radon
Problem Area Summaries

#14.  Sulfur Oxides  and Nitrogen  Oxides (including Acid  Deposition).   This
      problem area covers both primary and secondary effects of sulfur oxides
      and nitrogen oxides.   While health effects resulting from exposure  to
      sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides are discussed in this report,  they are
      not quantified.   It is the  secondary  effects of these pollutants that
      drive  both the  health and  ecological rankings,  specifically,  health
      effects resulting from inhalation of acid aerosols and ecological effects
      due to acid deposition.   Acid aerosols  irritate  the  lungs,  causing
      constricted breathing.   Evidence  also suggests that exposure to acid
      aerosols is associated with  respiratory symptoms,  such as coughing,  as
      well  as  increased mortality  rates  and  hospital  admissions  due  to
                                        15

-------
      respiratory illness.  With respect to ecological effects,  acid deposition
      alters the  chemistry of affected aquatic and terrestrial  ecosystems,
      damaging plant and animal life.  In particular, acid deposition affects
      aquatic ecosystems by lowering the pH of surface waters which may result
      in a decrease in the diversity of the biota as well as the loss of  fish
      species through death or inability to reproduce.

      It is estimated there are up to 480 premature deaths, over 2,000 hospital
      admissions,  and nearly 110,000 children and 230,000 adults experiencing
      respiratory symptoms  in Region 5.   Using data provided in a national
      study, it is estimated that there are 300 lakes (7,363  acres)  in Region 5
      with a pH of less  than  5.5.   At these low pHs, the result of  acidified
      rain impacts, aquatic damage may  occur.   It should be noted that while
      this data results in an ecological  ranking falling between medium-high and
      medium-low,  a medium-high ranking is given to this problem area because of
      the  significant contribution  of Region  5  emissions to  the problem in
      downwind areas, particularly in the  eastern United States and Canada.

#15.  Ozone and Carbon Monoxide.   While health impacts are quantified both for
      exposure to  ozone  and carbon  monoxide, the effects of ozone drive the
      health ranking.   Studies indicate that  healthy individuals exposed to
      ozone may experience impacts  such as  chest  pain, coughing, and asthma
      attacks.  Long-term exposure to ozone at current levels may also lead to
      irreversible lung injury and/or lung disease such as lesions in the lung.
      Carbon  monoxide can impair  breathing,  vision,  mental  function,   and
      aggravate existing conditions  such as angina.  With respect to ecological
      risk, only the  effects of ozone are assessed.  Plant responses to ozone
      include biochemical and physiological alterations,  visible foliar injury,
      reduction in growth,  losses in yield,  and alterations  in  reproductive
      capacity.

      It is estimated that there may be up to 5,800 asthma attacks and 440,000
      people days of respiratory restricted activity in Region 5 annually.   For
      carbon monoxide, it is estimated that 12,000 people in the Region are at
      high  risk of experiencing increased angina pain,  while 150,000 are at
      moderate risk.   In  addition,  it is estimated that 110,000 people in Region
      5 are at moderate risk of experiencing mild symptoms, while 1,300,000 are
      at low risk.  To characterize  ecological impacts,  the  effect of ozone on
      crop yields is assessed.  The area-weighted yield loss is estimated to be
      approximately   7   percent   and  12   percent  for  soybean   and  wheat,
      respectively.  Applying these figures to 1989 agricultural data results in
      estimated losses of 67 million bushels of soybean  and  50  million bushels
      of wheat in Region 5.

#16.  Airborne Lead.  This problem  area includes direct exposure  to airborne
      lead.  It does not include exposure to lead from drinking water delivery
      systems, lead  found  in  homes and buildings  from  leaded paint, or  lead
      deposited in soil.  No assessment  of ecological impacts  is performed.
      With  respect to health  impacts, children six  years old or  younger are
      generally considered to be most vulnerable.  As levels of lead in blood
      increase, children have been found to experience a wide range of effects
      including:   neurobehavioral effects,  lower intelligence  quotients,  and
      anemia.  In addition, studies  indicate that at high concentrations  lead
      may be carcinogenic.

      Using monitoring data,  it is  estimated that 140,000 people  in Region V
      live  in areas that  are violating  the National Ambient  Air Quality

                                        16

-------
      Standards (NAftQS).   Consequentially,  they may be at risk of experiencing
      adverse health effects due to exposure to  airborne lead.  It  should be
      noted that the monitoring network for lead  is  limited,  and we are  not
      confident that all  violations of the NAAQS  for lead are being monitored.
      In addition,  new information has recently become available setting a  new
      lower maximum safe  blood lead level.

#17.  Particulate Matter.  With respect to health effects, particulate matter,
      especially the more respirable particles smaller than 10  microns nominal
      diameter (BM,0), causes a variety of respiratory  problems.  These effects
      include  increased   incidence of  respiratory  disease,   especially   in
      children;  aggravation of  existing  respiratory diseases,  particularly
      bronchitis;  reduced  resistance  to  infection;  increased  respiratory
      symptoms;  and reductions  in lung  function.   Epidemiological studies
      demonstrate  that  airborne  particulate  matter   can cause  premature
      mortality, particularly in elderly and ill persons.   Particulate  matter
      also causes various  lesser effects such as  irritation of the eyes  and
      throat.  It is estimated that exposure to PM,p in Region  5 results in 25
      annual deaths and over 2.3 million annual restricted activity days.

      With respect  to ecological impacts,  particulate  matter is likely to have
      similar effects on animal populations as it does on humans.   However,
      studies  on  wildlife  cannot   readily  be  performed   either through
      epidemiological or  laboratory approaches and sufficient information could
      not be found  to characterize  effects of particulate matter on other flora
      and fauna. We are, therefore, unable to characterize ecological effects
      of particulate matter.

#18.  Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants.   This  problem area includes outdoor
      exposure to airborne hazardous air pollutants from routine or continuous
      emissions  from  point and  non-point sources.   This  problem area also
      includes exposure  through both  inhalation and  air deposition of these
      pollutants to  land areas.   Runoff of deposited  pollutants to surface
      waters is  addressed in the  Non-Point Sources  section.   This  category
      excludes, to the extent possible, risks from pesticides;  airborne lead;
      radioactive  substances;   chlorofluorocarbons;   emissions  from   waste
      treatment, storage  and disposal facilities; storage tanks; and indoor  air
      toxicants.  It should be noted,  however, that the  ecological effects on
      the Great Lakes described in this problem area  include,  to some extent,
      effects due to atmospheric deposition of pesticides.

      Data presented in national reports were used to assess cancer and non-
      cancer health risk.  In both cases,  national  data was apportioned  to  the
      Region by population.  In Region 5, it is estimated that there are  300 to
      480 cancer cases per  year, and  9.5 million people exposed to  levels of
      pollutants where acute effects would occur, and 7.2 million are exposed at
      levels where  chronic effects could occur.  While cancer  risk drives  the
      health ranking,  non-cancer health effects range from  subtle biochemical
      effects to adverse  impacts on organs.

      Sufficient information could not be found to  characterize the effects of
      air toxics on terrestrial ecosystems.  Ecological  impacts are  assessed,
      however,  based on the effects of toxicants on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
      Observed ecosystem  effects believed to result from toxicants in  the Lakes
      include  reproductive difficulties  and  population  decline,  metabolic
      changes,  birth defects, tumors,  "generational"  effects,  and behavioral
      changes.   With respect  to the  Great lakes ecosystem,  while it was  not

                                        17

-------
      possible to quantify impacts, studies  imply that the presence of  toxic
      substances in  the Great  Lakes  has  caused significant effects  on the
      reproduction and survival of populations of fish and wildlife.  Research
      indicates that animal species at the top of the Great Lakes  food chain,
      such as bald eagle, numerous other bird  species, lake trout and mink, have
      shown  sporadic and,  at  times,  long-term  reproductive  problems and/or
      population declines since the 1950's.

#19.  Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon.  Exposures occurring in  private
      households or in the workplace are included in this problem  area,  as  is
      inhalation of contaminants volatilized  from drinking water. With  respect
      to health effects, while both cancer and non-cancer risk are  studied,  it
      is the cancer risk that drives the ranking.  The carcinogens selected for
      evaluation  include  environmental   tobacco  smoke,  volatile   organic
      chemicals, formaldehyde, asbestos, and pesticides.  Pollutants selected
      for evaluation of non-cancer effects include environmental tobacco smoke,
      pesticides, carbon monoxide,  formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide, and volatile
      organic compounds.   These effects include cardiovascular, respiratory,
      nervous system, reproductive system,  immune system and pulmonary effects.
      No ecological risk assessment is performed.

      National studies are primarily used to  calculate risks in Region  5, with
      the national data being  apportioned to the region by population.  With
      respect to cancer risk,  in the Region it is estimated that there  are 720
      lung cancer deaths per year attributable to environmental  tobacco smoke,
      240 cancer deaths per year due to volatile organic pollutants, 330 cancer
      deaths per year due to formaldehyde,  1,000 cancer cases per year resulting
      from exposure to  asbestos in public  buildings and schools, and 1 cancer
      case per year due to pesticide exposure. With respect to non-cancer risk,
      in Region 5 it is estimated that there are  6,100 deaths per  year and  32
      deaths per year due to heart disease and emphysema respectively,  resulting
      from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and 57 deaths per year due to
      exposure to carbon monoxide from faulty consumer appliances.  Non-cancer
      risks due to pesticide exposure are generally thought to be low.  Finally,
      the non-cancer health effects resulting from exposure to nitrogen dioxide,
      formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds are not quantified.

#20.  Indoor Radon.  Radon  is a radioactive gas produced by the decay of radium,
      which occurs naturally in almost all soil and rock.   Health  risks  occur
      when radon migrates into buildings  through foundation  cracks or  other
      openings such  as  sumps, utility ports, or uncovered crawl  spaces.   To a
      lesser extent, radon can also enter the atmosphere of a  building when it
      volatilizes from drinking water supplies derived from groundwater.   As
      radon undergoes radioactive decay in a  building's atmosphere,  it produces
      a river of short-lived radioactive decay products.  When inhaled,  some of
      these decay products are deposited in the respiratory system and may lead
      to lung cancer.

      Based on the results of surveys conducted by the States  and USEPA,  it is
      estimated that the average annual radon level in the living areas of homes
      in Region 5 is 2.0 picocuries per liter of air.  Using USEPA1 s risk model,
      this level of exposure translates to  an average lifetime risk  of lung
      cancer of 1 in a 100. The model estimates that indoor radon causes 5,400
      lung cancer deaths a year in Region 5.   This would make  radon the second
      leading cause of  lung cancer in Region 5, after tobacco  smoking.
                                        18

-------
#21.  Radiation  other  than  Radon.    The  evaluation  of this  problem  area
      concentrated on sources of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation exposure
      for  which USEPA  currently  has or potentially  could have  regulatory
      authority.   Sources  of ionizing  radiation evaluated  include consumer
      products, building materials,  air travel, and air  emissions  from power
      plants, hospitals, process waste piles and other commercial or industrial
      facilities which  process  or use  nuclear materials.   Sources of  non-
      ionizing radiation qualitatively evaluated  as part  of this problem area
      include sources of electromagnetic radiation such  as television and radio
      transmitters,  radar,  electrical power  lines,  and  home appliances  and
      wiring.

      Ionizing radiation  is  a  known human carcinogen  and it also possesses
      mutagenic and  teratogenic properties.   From the standpoint  of  cancer
      incidence, the roost significant source  categories for the  population of
      Region 5 are construction materials and  commercial air travel.   Naturally
      occurring  radionuclides  in  construction  materials  such as  bricks,
      concrete, and wallboard are estimated to cause 130 annual cancer cases in
      Region 5.   In addition,  exposure to cosmic rays during air  travel is
      estimated to cause 52 annual cancer cases.

      The health impacts of non-ionizing radiation are less well understood and
      a firm cause and effect  relationship between cancer  and  this form of
      radiation has not  been established.  For this reason  the risks and impacts
      of non-ionizing radiation cannot be  accurately assessed.   A  number of
      studies, however,  suggest that extremely low  frequency radiation  from
      sources such as household wiring may  be  associated with an increased
      incidence of  certain childhood cancers.    Insufficient information is
      available to assess the ecological impacts of ionizing or non-ionizing
      radiation in Region 5

Optional #1.  Stratospheric Ozone Depletion.  Stratospheric  ozone shields the
      earth's surface  from dangerous ultraviolet (UV-B)   radiation.   To  the
      extent depletion occurs, penetration of UV-B radiation will increase and
      potentially result in  adverse effects on both human health  and  on
      ecosystems.   Health effects include increased incidence of  cataracts and
      both melanoma and  non-melanoma  skin cancers and suppression of the immune
      response  system.    With  respect  to ecological  effects,   plant  life,
      including many commercially important  crops, also  appear sensitive to
      increased UV-B radiation.  In the aquatic community, phytoplankton and the
      larvae of  several fish species  are likely to  be most  affected.    A
      reduction in phytoplankton productivity is particularly important as it
      provides food for fish,  both directly and indirectly.

      Using a national study it  is estimated there may be 1,600 additional non-
      melanoma cancer deaths per year and 300 additional  melanoma  cancer deaths
      per year for the next 88 years in Region 5.  With respect  to  ecological
      effects,   plant  science   research  suggests   increases  in  UV-B   may
      substantially impact  the  yield of important commercial crops, but  the
      evidence is still very limited.  Some experiments predict yield losses of
      up to 25 percent for soybeans and 7 percent for  corn. At 1987 production
      levels this  corresponds to a 6.5 million ton loss in soybean production
      and an additional 6.5 million  ton loss in  corn production in Region 5
      States.   Although the effects  of ground level  ozone on crop yields  are
      much better  understood,  more work is needed to confirm and quantify  the
      relationship between stratospheric ozone depletion  and tropospheric ozone
      formation.

                                       19

-------
Optional #2.  OOg and Global Wanning.  Scientists have concluded that increases
      in  greenhouse gases  will  eventually change  global  climate.    It  is
      estimated  that  doubling   carbon   dioxide  (C02)  concentrations  over
      preindustrial levels would lead to an increase of 1.5 to 4.5°C (2 to 8°F)
      in global air temperatures.  While this change in global climate is likely
      to  affect human health  because of direct and indirect links  between
      weather patterns, illness, and mortality, we are  unable to  quantify the
      increases in mortality and morbidity.  With respect to ecological effects,
      if  current  trends continue, the  rate of  climate change could be  much
      quicker than rates of natural migration and adaptation of plant and animal
      species.  Ihe presence of urban areas, agricultural lands, and roads will
      restrict habitats and block many migratory pathways.  Populations of many
      species are likely to decrease,  and in many cases became extinct.

      In  Region 5, global  climate change could  affect the  Great Lakes  by
      lowering lake levels by 0.5 to 2.5 meters  (1.7 to 8.3 feet),  reducing ice
      cover, and  degrading water quality  in rivers and shallow areas  of the
      lakes.  Higher temperatures and lower soil moisture  could reduce forest
      biomass  in  dry  sites.   For instance, in  central Michigan  by 77 to 99
      percent of dry forest would be impacted.   Studies also indicate that the
      temperature  and precipitation  changes could have profound affects  on
      agriculture  by  reducing crop yields throughout  the Region.   With the
      exception  of the  northernmost latitudes where  yields could  increase
      depending on rainfall availability, corn yields could decrease from 3 to
      60  percent  depending on climate  and water  regime and  dryland  soybean
      yields are expected to decrease by 3 to 65 percent.


Conclusions

      In general, the health and ecological risk rankings of the problem areas
      evaluated by the Air and Radiation Division did not differ markedly from
      the  findings of  the Agency's  1987  Unfinished Business report.   Our
      analysis confirmed that the health and ecological  residual risks posed by
      many of the air  and radiation problem areas are among the highest that the
      Agency faces.  Overall,  we have  a moderately high  degree of confidence in
      the relative rankings of the problem areas with respect to  human health
      impacts.  Although  the absolute projections of the number  of deaths or
      cases attributable to a particular problem area  may lack precision,  we
      believe  our projections have  sufficient  accuracy to  justify order of
      magnitude risk  groupings.  With  respect  to  ecological risks, we  have
      somewhat less confidence in the  relative risk rankings because of gaps in
      our knowledge concerning the ecological impacts of air contaminants.

      A salient point which emerged from our evaluation is that problem areas
      ranked in the highest health and ecological risk categories,  i.e., Indoor
      Air Pollutants,  Indoor Radon,  Stratospheric  Ozone Depletion,  Global
      Warming, and Hazardous Air Pollutants, are associated with Agency programs
      which  currently receive only a very  small  proportion of  the Agency's
      resources at the Divisional, Regional, and national levels. Many of these
      programs do not currently have a firm statutory and regulatory basis and
      traditional regulatory approaches may not be applicable and/or effective
      for some of these highest risk problem areas.   These problem areas present
      challenging  opportunities  for the  development  of  new and  creative
      approaches for risk reduction.
                                        20

-------
It is important to note that the Air and Radiation Division is involved in
programs which may significantly impact other highly ranked problem areas
which were evaluated by other Divisions within the Regional Office.  These
include  Non-Point Discharges to  Surface Waters,  Lead, and  Accidental
Releases (both from the standpoint of radiation and air toxics).  Because
of their multi-media nature, effectively addressing  these  problem areas
will require cooperative efforts among the Region's Divisions.
                                 21

-------
                       PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Relative Risk
High
Medium High & lew
IdW
Human Health


Physical Degradation of
Terrestrial Ecosystems
(Noise)
Ecological
Physical Degradation of
Terrestrial Ecosystems


Problem Area Summary

#22.  Physical Degradation of Terrestrial Ecosystems.  This  includes the non-
      chemical  impairment of  the Region's  agricultural,  forest,  urban  and
      grassland ecosystems.  EPA has broad authority to address non-chemical
      physical  degradation of  terrestrial  ecosystems  through  the  National
      Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA)  regulating federal activities.    Some
      further ability to  address physical degradation is through the combined
      responsibilities of EPA's program offices.

      Noise is a discernable health effect which results from road and airport
      development, which EPA reviews under NEPA.   Ecological  risk results from
      the  irreversible  impairment or loss of  prairie  (greater than 98%  of
      original), dunes  and old growth  forest ecosystems,  and the  impacts  of
      agricultural practices on large areas.   The most prevalent ecological
      impacts  include  deforestation,  soil  erosion,  species  diversity  and
      population loss, and loss of rare indigenous ecosystems,


Conclusions

      This problem area considers significant non-chemical environmental risks
      not routinely addressed in EPA programs. In attempting to assess physical
      risks to the  terrestrial environment,  it became apparent  that not only
      does that  data  not exist in the  Region,  but also that a comprehensive
      identification of the stressors and impacts is not readily available.
      With  the  emerging  focus  on  ecological  risks   at  EPA,  it  becomes
      increasingly important to be able to discern and characterize the risk
      posed to terrestrial ecosystems by physical  degradation.   To develop an
      approach to terrestrial resources, a method of identifying the ecological
      impacts  of physical  degradation should  be developed for use  across
      programs.

      Through interaction within the Region and with other agencies on issues of
      common  interest,  EPA  has  opportunities  to  directly  influence  how
      terrestrial resources will be treated.  Finally,  the private sector and
      State agencies have a wealth of information and some program activities
      (e.g., the Heritage data system)  with which  the Region  should  become
      familiar and should support.
                                        22

-------
                           RISK ASSESSMENT PROJECT:


Major Conclusions and Recommendations

Major conclusions and recommendations from Region 5's risk assessment project are
as follows:

  l. Additional initiatives are needed to restore degraded environments and
     prevent current and future risks to ecosystems in Region 5.

      • Unique aquatic ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes,  and other
      surface waters have been seriously degraded historically by point
      water pollution  sources.   While many major point  sources are now
      largely controlled, recovery of aquatic ecosystems has been slow and
      incomplete due to non-point sources of toxics  (i.e., pesticides and
      PCBs) coining from agricultural runoff, atmospheric deposition, and
      previously contaminated  sediments. The  successful  control of non-
      point water pollution will require interprogrammatic and interagency
      initiatives.  Further evaluation of pollution impacts on the Great
      Lakes is planned as part of this comparative risk project.

      • Wetlands, highly productive and diverse ecosystems, have undergone
      a  rapid  decline due  to  physical  degradation caused  by  urban
      development and  agricultural activities.   While EPA's  regulatory
      efforts have greatly reduced this loss in recent years, wetlands are
      still disappearing at an alarming rate.

      •  Intensive agriculture  and forest  management activities,  have
      resulted in reduced biological diversity and may also threaten the
      long-term  sustainability of these managed ecosystems.    Physical
      degradation of these  and other  terrestrial  ecosystems, such  as
      prairies, has been substantial.  While EPA can control part of these
      environmental problems  (i.e.,  pesticides) other federal agencies
      have more direct roles in the protection of terrestrial ecosystems.
      For example, the training and certification  for use of  restricted
      pesticides and guidance to control soil erosion (including erosion
      to surface waters) are the responsibility of States' Departments of
      Agriculture.     Further  cooperative  efforts  between   EPA  and
      Departments of Agriculture are indicated.

      • Impacts to agricultural and forest ecosystems in Region 5 due to
      stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming could be profound
      and widespread in the next century.   However,  the magnitude of the
      impacts predicted by the models is currently subject to substantial
      uncertainty.  While ozone-depleting CFCs will be phased  out by the
      year 2000, plans to address global warming are being discussed.

      • Other air pollutants such as sulfur oxides,  nitrogen oxides, and
      ozone  are  responsible  for environmental  damage  of  lakes  and
      agricultural crops.  Reauthorization of the Clean Air Act will give
      EPA more authority to  address the environmental impacts  of these
      pollutants.

2. EPA needs  to devote further efforts  to develop additional  methods  and
guidelines to permit a more complete assessment  of ecological  risks.


                                        23

-------
    • As found in other risk projects, ecological risk characterization
    was particularly difficult because sufficient methodologies do not
    exist to fully assess ecological risks.

    • Region 5  will  work with  the Office  of  Planning  Policy  and
    Evaluation, the Office of Research and Development, and others to
    develop additional ecological risk assessment methodologies.

    • A comprehensive monitoring network is necessary to support this
    type of analysis but does not presently exist.

3. Analysis of the environmental problem areas revealed that some risks
   are not confined to one problem area,  control program, or medium.

    • Pesticides,  chlorinated  solvents, PCBs,   and  other  chemicals
    involved more  than  one  problem  area  due  to multiple  pollution
    sources and impacts on more than one medium.  This is of particular
    importance in the Great Lakes.

    • Disaggregation of some problems  (i.e., pesticides and chlorinated
    solvents) in comparative  risk analyses and  in current regulatory
    activity may underemphasize the importance of environmental problems
    or  chemical  specific  problems  and  reduce EPA's   ability  to
    effectively   deal   with   such   problems.       Integrated   and
    interprogrammatic strategies are needed on a regional  or national
    level to effectively deal with specific pollutants.

4. Numbers of people exposed and size of the geographic areas affected were
   major factors in the determination of health and ecological risk
   rankings.

    • Eleven of the 26 problem areas  ranked as having high or medium-
    high human health risks.  These problem areas, which included risks
    from indoor air pollutants,  ambient air pollutants,  pesticides and
    accidental chemical  releases, were driven by the large  number of
    people exposed, or potentially exposed,  in Region 5.  In addition to
    the large population exposure, the severity of health effects, for
    example, cancer deaths from indoor radon, significantly contributed
    to the  high or medium-high health risk rankings of some problem
    areas.

    • Thirteen of the 26 environmental problem areas  ranked as medium-
    low or low human health risks.  Medium-low or low rankings should
    not  be  interpreted   as  meaning  that  these  problem  areas  are
    insignificant or that persons  are not  at risk.   Generally,  these
    problem  areas,  which included    the  risks from  hazardous  and
    municipal solid waste sites,  were ranked low based on  the fewer
    number of people exposed as compared to other problem areas.

    • Four  problem  areas ranked as medium-low  to low  for ecological
    risks:   Managed  (RCRA)  Hazardous Waste Sites,  Storage  Tanks,
    Industrial Solid Waste Sites and Municipal  Solid Waste Sites.  These
    lower rankings,  as compared to other problem areas,  are the result
    of the generally small (i.e., <100 acres) geographic areas impacted
    by these operations.
                                      24

-------
 5. High risks are often due to limited EEA or other Federal/State regulatory.
    authority.

      •  Several environmental problems studied which give high human
      health  or ecological risks  including global warming,  accidental
      chemical  releases,  physical  degradation of  terrestrial  habitats,
      hazardous/toxic air pollutants, non-point water pollution, indoor
      radon, and indoor air pollutants are the result of limited, or lack
      of, EPA or other Federal/State authority.  Creative approaches are
      needed to more effectively address these high risk problems.

      • EPA and State effort to control risks from industrial wastewater
      discharges, drinking water, groundwater, and airborne lead has been
      successful, as  evidenced by the  relatively  low human health and
      ecological risks  found in this risk assessment exercise.   Large
      disinvestment in regulatory  activities controlling these problems
      could increase risks and costs of future cleanups.

 6. Additional research and data is needed to more fully and accurately
    characterize ecological and human health risks.

      • Several problem areas, for example air toxics, lacked sufficient
      data to make accurate estimates of ecological  risk.  For pesticides,
      insufficient exposure data existed  to fully  assess ecological and
      human health risks.  As more data becomes available, these problem
      areas should be re-evaluated to more accurately quantify risks.

      •  There  is  substantial uncertainty  in  the  magnitude of impact
      derived from predictive models, such as those  for global warming and
      stratospheric ozone  depletion.    Further refinement in models is
      needed to better assess future risks.

  7. Economic costs of environmental damage in Region 5 due to effects on
     human health and the environmental is substantial.

      • A  preliminary economic analysis  conducted  as part of the risk
      assessment exercise indicates  that the environmental problems in
      Region 5  result in several billion dollars  per year of  economic
      damages including (1) damage to human health, hospitalization costs;
      (2) loss of ecological habitats and agricultural land including soil
      (3) damage to property and (4)  recreational use impairments.

      •  Further study  of the  economic  analysis  will be  required  to
      determine how it will be used in this process.

8. A long-term strategy for risk management and risk reduction is required.

      • In the second phase of the comparative risk project the  results
      will be further reviewed to  develop an effective, long-term risk
      management strategy to deal with the environmental problems analyzed
      in the project.  Three discrete activities will be involved.   First,
      refinements  to  existing  plans  will be   made  and  a   FY  92
      implementation plan will be developed.   Second, by the spring of
      1991, the FY 93  strategic plans will be formulated and used as the
      basis for developing the Agency's FY 93 budget.  Third, a  longer-
      term strategic plan for FY 94-97 will be developed. The interaction
      among Regional  and State  managers  is the  key to  developing  a

                                        25

-------
meaningful  plan.     These  strategic  plans  will  be  developed
considering all aspects of risk management including  (1) impacts of
disinvestment  and  investment  in  current  or  new  programs  (2)
regulatory   authority   (3)   cross-media  and   interprogrammatic
coordination (4) technical feasibility (5)  risk reduction achieved
and cost effectiveness  (6) application of pollution prevention and
recycling (7) procedures to be used to monitor the success of risk
reduction including data gathering and data management and  (8) State
and public concerns.
                                ITC
•US. Government Printing Office: 1991 — 524-499            2 6

-------