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
------- |