United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region III
Air, Radiation and Toxics Division
Philadelphia. PA 19107
EPA/903/B-94/001
December 1994
Fmal
Region III
Technical Guidance Manual
Risk Assessment
EPA
Region III
Environmental Targeting Systems
Prepared by
The Ad Hoc Regional Workgroup on
Environmental Targeting Systems
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the Ad Hoc Regional Workgroup
on Environmental Targeting Systems of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report provides a catalogue of available
targeting systems. Mention of targeting systems does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Approved by_
Thomas J. MasTany, Director
Air, Radiation and Toxics Division
-------
:x
Table of Contents
Page
Disclaimer ii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Workgroup Members 3
3.0 Air Systems 5
1. Matrix • . . 7
2. Systems
a. Source Category Ranking System (SCRS) .... 13
b. Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)
Ranking System 23
^ c. Human Exposure Model - 2- (HEM-2) 29
f d. Assessment of Air Emissions from
\o Hazardous Waste Treatment,
cv\ Storage and Disposal Facilities 35
e. Indexing System for Comparing
Toxic Air Pollutants Based Upon
Potential Environmental Impacts 39
f. 1991 MERIT Project For Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) Airborne
Carcinogenic Releases And Observed
Human Cancer Mortality Rates 43
g. Indoor Air Quality Cluster
Strategic Planning Matrix 47
4.0 Comparative Risk 51
1. Matrix 53
2. Systems
a. Comparative Risk Analysis 59
b. Cross-Media Comparative Risk
Assessment Model 69
c. Graphical Exposure Modeling
System (GEMS) 73
d. Integrated Environmental Management
Program (IEMP) 77
e. Regi'on VI Human Health Risk Index 81
5.0 Enforcement 87
1. Matrix 89
2. Systems
a. Multi-Media Ranking System 95
b. Risk Based Multimedia Targeting
System 103
iii
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, I2th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
6.0 Environmental Justice . . ' 107
1. Matrix 109
2. Systems
a. Environmental Justice Demographic •
User Interface 115
b. Population Estimation and
Characterization Tool (PECT) 119
c. Region II Office of Policy and
Management Environmental Justice
Index Mapping Application 125
d. Region IV Environmental Targeting
System 131
7.0 Hazardous Waste 135
1. Matrix 137
2. Systems
a. Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 143
b. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Risk Cost Analysis Model
Multi-Media Contaminant Fate,
Transport and Exposure Model (MMSOILS) . . . .149
8.0 Lead 153
1. Matrix 155
2. Systems
a. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
System To Assess Lead Exposure
Using Geographic Information
System Technology 161
b. North Carolina GIS Modelling Of
Lead Poisoning Risk Factors 167
c. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Geographic Lead Targeting
System 171
d. Region V Lead Education and
Abatement Program (LEAP) 175
e. Region IX Geographic Information
System (GIS) Multi-media Pilot Project .... 181
9.0 Pollution Prevention 185
1. Overview 185
2. System
a. Screening Methodology for
Pollution Prevention
Targeting 187
IV
-------
10.0 Sediment Contaminant Ranking 191
1. Overview 191
2. System
a. Sediment Contaminant Ranking 193
11^0 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) 201
1. Matrix 203
2. Systems
a. Chemical Indexing for the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory
Part I: Chronic Index 209
b. Chemical Scoring System for
Hazard and Exposure Identification 215
c. Office of Toxic Substances Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Risk
Screening Guide, Volumes I and II 221
d. Region III 1989 Toxic Release Inventory Project
Ranking System 227
e. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Environmental Indicators
Draft Methodology 231
f. Region VII Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
Geographic Risk Analysis System (TIGRAS) . . . 237
g. Region VII Risk Targeting System 241
h. Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA)
Release Inventory Chemical Risk
Assessment Pre-Screening Methodology 245
12.0 Acronyms and Questionnaire 249
-------
-------
1.0 Introduction
Since the early 1980's scientists have developed a variety of
screening systems to identify potential human health and ecological
risks. These systems utilize numerous approaches to describe
potential risk including prioritization of specific chemicals,.
facilities, geographic areas, environmental media or multi-media
problem areas. The systems currently available provide comparisons
which range from qualitative assessment of health and environmental
impacts to more sophisticated quantitative rankings based on
computer modeling with display of results using Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology.
To better understand these systems, the Ad Hoc Regional
Workgroup on Environmental Targeting Systems compiled summaries on
35 screening methods developed by EPA and State organizations1!
The intent of this project was to identify currently available
screening methodologies, provide a central, standard comparison of
the systems, and to provide the foundation for discussing risk
screening methodologies especially for those groups considering new
system development.
The Workgroup began by identifying contact persons who were in
some way connected with system development. The Workgroup members
then posed a series of questions designed to highlight specific
aspects of the system under consideration. The questionnaire
included information for the following areas:
• a personal contact name, address and affiliation for
further information,
• a short description of the system,
• the system's intended use and audience,
• limitations and uncertainties of the system,
• a description of the quantitative algorithms and
qualitative data analysis,
• description of the environmental medium (i.e., air,
water, and soil) and geographic coverage area,
• description of the system's output,
' During compilation of this catalogue, the University of Tennessee, Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies also
prepared a catalogue under contract by EPA entitled, "Comparative Evaluation of Chemical Ranking and Scoring Methodologies"
EPA order no. 3N-3545-NAEX.
-------
• identification of the type of peer-review the system has
undergone as identified by the contact person,
• description of the background supporting the system's
development, and
• reference citations for additional information.
Respondents were also encouraged to submit additional material
to supplement the information obtained using the questionnaire.
The Workgroup's efforts resulted in the identification of 35
screening methods developed by EPA and State organizations. Despite
the numerous overlaps between the systems, the Workgroup made a
concerted effort to categorize these systems in terms of a common
theme noted in each chapter. Where possible, cross referencing has
been included.
The majority of the 35 systems are designed to address the
first two steps of risk assessment according to the National
Academy of Sciences paradigm: hazard identification and dose-
response.1 To evaluate dose-response, some systems utilize default
assumptions such as radial distance from a facility. Other systems
employ sophisticated media-specific models to estimate chemical
concentrations at some point distant from the source.
In recent years, one trend in the screening methodologies is
the increasing use of Geographic Information System (GIS)
technology to display information. These tools are used to
identify populations of potential concern based on Census Bureau
data and to display media-specific modeling results with facility
locations to provide a preliminary indication of potential impacts.
Another aspect of the systems in this catalogue includes the
use of qualitative judgement designed to explain the limitations of
the databases used to assess potential risk. For example, many
systems identified the lack of chemical-specific toxicity
information as a major limitation and employed some form of
qualitative evaluation to account for this deficiency. In addition
to providing a relative ranking of hazard, along with qualitative
evaluations, some systems compare generalized environmental problem
areas.
For the future, advances in computer technology, modeling
algorithms, and statistical approaches will improve our ability to
identify potential populations and geographic areas of concern. As
we become aware of ongoing developments in this field, appropriate
modifications will be made to this catalogue.
1. National Academy of Sciences (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C.
-------
2.0 Workgroup Members
The Workgroup members, with specific interest in
application of screening methods within their Region, are:
the
Marian Olsen,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Region H
Dr. Debra L. Forman,
Air, Radiation and Toxics Division Region III
Dr. Cory Berish,
Office of Policy and Management
Solomon Pollard,
Office of Policy and Management
Carol Braverman,
Office of Planning & Management
Dr. Gerald Carney,
Management Division
Mary Rouse,
Water Management Division
Dr. Rosanne Lorenzana,
Environmental Services Division
Region IV
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region X
Many of these Workgroup members have developed Region-specific
systems that are identified within this document.
If you are aware of other screening systems, or would like to
submit new developments for existing systems, you may submit your
suggestions to workgroup members Debra Forman at (215) 597-3175 or
Mary Rouse at (913) 551-7415. For your convenience, a blank
questionnaire is provided in Chapter 12 of this document.
-------
-------
3.0 Air Systems
A total of seven screening systems addressing air releases were
identified. Six systems address ambient air conditions and one
provides a comparative ranking of indoor air emissions. The
majority of the systems were developed in response to legislation
within the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The principle
contaminants addressed are Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS).
The matrix on the following pages compares various aspects of
the air screening systems according to selected criteria. From
this information, the following items are of interest:
Limitations:
• Limitations identified for many systems include a lack of
toxicity information for many of the chemicals of interest.
Two systems rank the 189 HAPS.
• Many of the systems use the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) as the basis for toxicity assessment. Additional data
sources include Gene-TOX, Lethal Concentration^ (LC50) , Lethal
Doseso (LD50) and Effective Dose10 (ED10) values to address data
gaps in the IRIS system.
Quantitative Algorithms:
• Exposure. The majority of the systems analyze the inhalation
pathway alone. One system, the Indexing System for Comparing
Toxic Air Pollutants Based Upon Potential Environmental
Impacts, incorporates fate and transport of air emissions to
different environmental media using a fugacity model.
• Concentration term. Based on the year the systems were
developed, many systems utilize calculations for the Maximum
Exposed Individual. Systems developed or updated more
recently address central tendency and high end population
analysis.
• Population. Two systems include population analysis, one at
the national or county level and another at the enumeration
district/block group level.
• Ecological Risk. Two systems, the Source Category Ranking
System and the Indexing System for Comparing Toxic Air
Pollutants Based Upon Potential Environmental Impacts, address
ecological risk.
-------
-------
AIR SYSTEMS MATRIX
See also
Graphical Exposure Modeling System (page 73),
Region VI Human Health Risk Index (page 81),
Multi-Media Ranking System (page 95),
Region X Risk Based Multimedia Targeting System (page 103),
Hazard Ranking System (page 143),
Region IX Geographic Information System Multimedia Pilot
Project (page 181), and
systems listed under Toxic Release Inventory Section
(beginning on page 201).
-------
Air Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Acronym:
System
Description'
Primary Audience:
Legislation:
Geographic
Coverage:
Peer ReVieWj I
Output:
SOURCE
CATEGORY
RANKING
SYSTEM
SCRS
To prioritize taunt
categories fof
standard*.
EPA.
CAA Section 112.
Nation and county.
EPAOAQPS. Published
In Federal Register for
review end comment.
Relative ranking of source
categories.
HAZARDOUS
AIR
POLLUTANT
RANKING SYSTEM
N/A
To rank 189 Hazardous
Air Pollutants as required
under Section 11 2g of the
Clean Air Act.
state governments.
CAA Section 112(g).
Individual facilities.
Internal OAQPS, SAB and
CAA Advisory Coin i Ntlee .
Relative Ranking of
nhanttilnsala ^ ImrtMtt
cnenncM* n ivcnuy.
HUMAN
EXPOSURE
MODEL -2
HEM-2
To estimate
pollutants at specified
-distances from emission
sources.
EPA and outside.
CAA.
Specified distances nxwvv
facility.
EPA OAQPS.
Total annual population
exposure. Based on
•ujuLml «rf imiMil^Lm mntt
pvuwjd OT fwpumion ano
(her total area.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT,
STORAGE
AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
N/A
To rank 100 of SOI RCRA
wastes hendted by
treatment, storage, end '
dtsposel fecttHes oesed
on elr emissions.
EPA.
RCRA.
Individual fecHlty.
Published (n journal.
factors.
Statements of peer-review have been submitted by the personal contact for each system and compiled by the Ad H
further review of the peer-review process presented for the system of Interest.
INDEXING SYSTEM FOR
COMPARING TOXIC AIR
POLLUTANTS BASED
UPON POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
N/A
To set priorities for
developing elr toxics
regulations, (ntonnetlon
gathering, and setting
fees Ibr emissions.
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
CAA and Minnesota State
Laws.
Minnesota state but can
be applied to others.
Published tn peer*
reviewed Journal,
Chemosphere.
Relative ranking of
J^.*.Hl»^te
cnemcsn.
oc Workgroup. The Wor
1991 MERIT PROJECT
FOR TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY (TRI)
AIRBORNE
CARCINOGENIC
RELEASES AND
OBSERVED CANCER
MORTALITY RATES
MERIT
To ovakiato correlation
between Toxic Release
Inventory Data and health
effects.
EPA Region III.
EPCRA Section 313.
Region III.
ft^sM SMMfl eWV^^LMSj
*V*s>p •nO CuiTvlsmlufl
TRI emissions and cancer
mortality.
kgroup encourages
INDOOR
AIR
STRATEGIC '
PLANNING
MATRIX
N/A
To Mkience Agency
sbateglc planning to
address Indoor air
quality.
EPA and In the future
legislators and pubWc.
CAA.
Nation.
On-going protect.
Working with EPA's SAB
Indoor Air Quality
Committee.
Relative ranking of 35
problem areas.
-------
Air Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
Year
Developed:
Currently Used:
Hardware:
Software:
SOURCE
CATEGORY
RANKING
SYSTEM
1986
Yes.
Mainframe computer
at the National
Computer Center In
Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
ISCLT Model
NEDS
TRI
SOCMI
IRIS
RTECS
HSDB
HAZARDOUS
AIR
POLLUTANT
RANKING SYSTEM
1993
Yes
None.
None.
HUMAN
EXPOSURE
MODEL -2
1986. 1991
Yes
•
VAX mainframe
cluster at the
National Computer
Center In RTP, North
Carolina.
HEM-2 model.
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT.
STORAGE
AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1983
Unknown.
None.
None.
INDEXING SYSTEM FOR
COMPARING TOXIC AIR
POLLUTANTS BASED
UPON POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
1993
Yes.
DOS based
computer wKh 2 MB
RAM.
Spreadsheet.
1991 MERIT PROJECT
FOR TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY (TRJ)
AIRBORNE '
CARCINOGENIC
RELEASES AND
OBSERVED CANCER
MORTALITY RATES
1991
Replaced by
Chemical Indexing
for the Toxic
Chemical Release
Inventory, Part I:
Chronic Index (page
209).
CIS Workstation.
ARC/INFO Software.
INDOOR
AIR
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
MATRIX
1994
Yes.
None.
None.
Abbreviations: CAA, Clean Air Act; RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TRI. Toxic Release Inventory; OAQPS, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; ISCLT, Industrial
Source Complex Long Term model; NEDS. National Emissions Data System; IRIS, Integrated Risk Information System; SOCMI. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; RTECS.
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances; and HSDB, Hazardous Substances Database.
-------
Air Systems Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
(generally
systems
Isdt toxldty
data for many
•specially for
rwn-carclnogent)
Term)
- Chemicals
-Exposure
Pathways
SOURCE
CATEGORY
RANKING
SYSTEM
category. Models used to
189 HAPS only.
Inhalation only.
Census.
ITKXJBIS,
HAZARDOUS
AIR
POLLUTANT (HAP)
RANKING
SYSTEM
_. . ^
front chronic toxIcRy
cofflposno scoie.
Subject** rating score for
Mm*
189 HAPS only.
Isihatarffcan janlu
HHWWIIUII Wny,
No differential ranklno Is
nonthrestroW effect and a
severe scute effect.
HUMAN
EXPOSURE
MODEL -2
UMf discretion.
^_t ^^
IndlvMiMl(MEI).
Uterdtocratlon.
Intwtotton.
Census.
Ftat temln model* add-In
needed.
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT.
STORAGE. ,
AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES '
Llmtted to 100 chemfcals.
e«»t-irfiaim JUMiSBaiiiiii
Ltmltfltlons essocMeo
10WS01 RCRA chenfMlt.
InheMlon.
MMM
INDEXING SYSTEM FOR
COMPARING TOXIC AIR
POLLUTANTS BASED
UPON POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
i
Luvt ifuvny uvyivumui
dsAsi. Mets4s not
spedeted. Excludes
•ddlflcsAlon, '
. . mnmftnmt
transport In air.
183 Substenoes selected
CMgorkedbMWlon
Me and transport.
1991 MERIT PROJECT
FOR TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY (TRI)
AIRBORNE .
CARCINOGENIC
RELEASES AND
OBSERVED CANCER
MORTALITY RATES
reporting yesr. ledMy
(•Mude/tongltude date
•noted.
- >
MtWM
TRI cnefTwcaJs only.
\
Inhafattort.
Cancer mortwRy dsla
oonwlefed a feiAaUon.
INDOOR
AIR
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
MATRIX
on problem area.
Difficult to compare
among datasets.
Indoor air pollutants e.g.,
Inhattton.
None.
considered Important.
10
-------
Air Systems Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
ToxIcRy
-Cancer
-Non-Cancer
1. Aggregate
3. Acute-Short Term
4. Chronic
5. Neurotoxlclty
-Date
1. IRIS
2. HEAST
3. TLVs
4. RTECS
5. HSDB
Exposure
- Central Tend.
-High End
-MEI
EcoloQicei
Economics
- Technology
-Other
Other
SOURCE
CATEGORY
RANKING
SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Limited.
X
Sea exposure.
Nona.
HAZARDOUS
AIR POLLUTANT
(HAP) RANKING
SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
None.
None.
Nona.
None.
None.
HUMAN
EXPOSURE
MODEL -2
Fields available to add In
data at user discretion.
User defined.
X
Nona.
Nona.
None. Can be user
defined.
None.
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT.
STORAGE.
AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
X - Risk 1 x 104 Level
X
X
X
X
X
X
None.
Nona.
None.
None.
None.
INDEXING SYSTEM FOR
COMPARING TOXIC AIR
POLLUTANTS BASED
UPON POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
I
X
X
X
X
X
TLV/100
J
- :
Fata and banadbfl model.
None.
None.
None.
1«91 MERIT PROJECT
FOR TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY (TRI)
AIRBORNE
CARCINOGENIC
RELEASES AND
OBSERVED CANCER
MORTALITY RATES
X
X
X
Comletlon study.
None.
None.
None.
None.
INDOOR
AIR
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
MATRIX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Scientific LRei eture
X
X
X
None.
X
X
Evaluating sensitive
populations at special
risk where data Is
eveHebto.
None.
11
-------
Air Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
Qualitative
Assessment:
-Cancer
- Non-Cancer
-Exposure
• EcolOQlcal
- Economics
- Env. Justice
-Other
SOURCE
CATEGORY
RANKING
SYSTEM
X
X
X
HAZARDOUS
AIR POLLUTANTS
(HAP) RANKING
SYSTEM
X
X
HUMAN
EXPOSURE
MODEL - 2
FMds available to add In
data at user discretion.
i
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT.
STORAGE.
AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
'
X - Risk 1 x 10* Level
x •
t
.
INDEXING SYSTEM FOR
COMPARING TOXIC AIR
POLLUTANTS BASED
UPON POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
None. :
i
1991 MERIT PROJECT
FOR TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY (TRI)
AIRBORNE
CARCINOGENIC
RELEASES AND
OBSERVED CANCER
MORTALITY RATES
X
X
Cancer Mortality Rates
INDOOR
AIR
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
MATRIX
X
X
X
X
X
X
Scientific Literature
l
12
-------
AIR
SOURCE CATEGORY RANKING SYSTEM
Acronym: SCRS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Contact Person: Charles French, Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards, Emissions Standards- Branch,
Pollutant Assessment Branch, U.S. EPA, Mail Drop 13,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Telephone
number: (919) 541-0467.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Source Category Ranking System (SCRS) is a tool developed
by the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to
aid in prioritizing source categories for regulations development
under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA). The SCRS
addresses the first 2 criteria stated in Section 112(e)(3) of the
CAA. These criteria require that EPA consider, when prioritizing
source categories for the development of the schedule for
standards, "adverse effects of" hazardous air pollutants (HAP's)
and the "quantity and location of emissions". The system
generates a score for each listed source category based on
emissions estimates, estimated toxicity of the HAP's and to a
lesser degree, the location (when known) of the emitting
facilities within a listed source "category.
The SCRS combines emission estimates, health effects data, and
limited population data to rank categories of sources. The
result is a scoring system by which a category of sources is
ranked in relation to all other listed categories based on its
associated emission estimates, pollutant health effects (toxicity
of HAPs) and limited population data.
Pollutant List. The list of pollutants includes the 189 toxic
pollutants contained in the CAA of 1990.
13
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
i
Use: To determine priorities for promulgating emission
standards under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
The SCRS addresses the following criteria required
under CAA: known or anticipated adverse effects
v of HAPs on public health and the environment; and
the quantity and location of emissions or
reasonably anticipated emissions of HAPs. The
score provides a relative measure of quantity and
location of emissions and toxicity for use in
comparing different categories.
Audience: EPA staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Results are not equivalent to risk assessment;
The SCRS does not generate population exposure assessments
perse, and does not generate risk estimates. The results of the
SCRS are, at best, a relative ranking of source categories based
on readily available information on emissions and toxicity. The
data incorporated into the SCRS are of greatly varying quality
and depth, and the algorithms contain many assumptions.
Therefore, in interpreting results from the ranking system, it is
important to consider, that the SCRS was designed as a tool to
aid in prioritizing source categories under Section 112(c) of the
CAA.
Exposure scores are based on national averages:
The exposure scores for many of the categories were based on
nationwide estimated aggregate emissions and national average
population density. This method does not accurately reflect the
location of individual facilities and their proximity to
population centers, which have a large influence on resultant
exposure scores. The SCRS uses nationwide and county average
population data (assuming equal exposure to the modeled
concentrations). Also, there can be a great deal of variability
in the HAP emissions from different facilities which is not
reflected by these estimates.
Uncertainty exists in emissions estimation techniques:
The emission estimation techniques also contain
uncertainties. The emission factors are only an approximation of
the amount of HAPS generally associated with various emission
streams. The emissions data from some sources are more current
than others. Changes in processes, reactants, or level of
control that may affect the type, quantity of location of
14
-------
pollutant emissions may have occurred but current data on these
modifications may be missing. The use of simplified dispersion
algorithms assumes constants for source specific and chemical
specific dispersion characteristics.
Quality and quantity of toxicological data varies;
The health effects score also contains some uncertainty
since the quality and quantity of available toxicological data
for each chemical varies. Another limitation of the SCRS ranking
results is an inability to address severity of health effects or
weight of evidence.
Population is assumed to be uniformly distributed;
The population data is based on the 1980 Census and the
assumption of uniform population density within each county or
nationwide. Limitations include the inability to address
increases in population growth rates among counties, and
population density and emission rates are not uniform.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity:
Exposure:
Ecological
Unit Cancer Risk Factors, Lowest Observed
Effect Levels (LOELS) for reproductive
toxicity, acute lethality scores, and other
health effects from long-term and short-term
exposure to toxic air pollutants.
Figure 1 on page 22 summarizes the toxicity
and exposure analysis scheme.
Sensitive populations, central tendency,
high end, and Maximum Exposed Individual
exposures are evaluated.
A limited technical analysis to address
ecological concerns was.performed based on
emissions estimates, aquatic toxicity,
environmental partitioning and
bioconcentration for the "Focus Chemicals for
the Clean Air Act Amendments Great Waters
Study" (Docket No. A-91-14, item no. IV-A-2).
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Technological alternatives and societal costs
were evaluated using available data.
- See exposed populations.
Other (specify): None.
15
-------
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity (cancer X Yes No
and non-cancer
long-term and
short-term):
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental
Justice: Yes X No
Other (specify) : Yes X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air (ambient) Soil Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Nationwide and county.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify ^____
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
X External (description: methodology published in the
Federal Register for review and comment).
Other (describe):
16
-------
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Mainframe located at the National Computer Center
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Software: Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT) model,
National Emissions Data System (NEDS), Toxic
Release Inventory System (TRIS), Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI),
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
(RTECS), and Hazardous Substances Data Base
(HSDB).
Historical Background (information on system development and
whether it replaces any previous indexing systems):
The original approach was published in the. Federal Register,
Vol. 57, Number 186, Thursday, September 24, 1992 proposed rules
(pp. 44147-44156) titled: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Availability; Draft Schedule for the
Promulgation of Emission Standards. The procedures for the
ranking were outlined in the Federal Register notice.
Comments on the approach were published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 58, No. 231, December 3, 1993 pp. 63941-63955.
This document titled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Schedule for the Promulgation of Emission
Standards Under Section 112 (e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 provides specific comments on the ranking approach
identified in the 1992 announcement.
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986). Guidelines on
Air Quality Models (Revised). Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA
450/2-78-027R.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Industrial
Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide - Section
Edition (Revised) Volume 1. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 450/4-
88-002a.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988). National
Emissions Data System, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (July
1988).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990) . Volatile Organic
17
-------
Compound (VOC)/Particulate Matter (PM) Speciation Data System
Documentation and User's Guide. Version l-32a. Contract No.
68-02-4286. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. .(September 1990).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Methodology for
the Source Category Ranking System. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. (September 1992).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Schedule for
Standards: Methodology and Results for Ranking Source
Categories Based on Environmental Effects Data. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA 453/R-93-053. (September 1993).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Schedule for
Standards: Methodology for the Source Category Ranking
System. FINAL. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. EPA 453/R-93-
046. (September 1993).
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Source Categories. The source category list includes known
source categories that emit one or more of the specified
pollutants. Identification of source categories is dependent on
the availability of resources and references that relate
emissions information to specific industrial sources. The SCRS
interfaces with EPA's National Emissions Data System (NEDS) and
Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) for source category data.
In addition, the SCRS's data files contain information developed
by EPA during the course of recent New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) regulatory activities. In particular the
Emission Standards Division (BSD) of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards has developed a data file of source
categories for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI). For any given application, the user may choose
to use other available information such as combinations of
available automated databases or the BSD data files to generate a
source category list.
Emissions Estimates. For each source category, the emission
estimation technique depends on whether the source category is
comprised of point sources or "modeled area sources". For point
sources, emissions are estimated on a plant-by-plant basis. For
each plant, emission estimates are developed for both stack and
fugitive emissions. For modeled area sources, emissions are
estimated for the source category as a whole. The term modeled
area sources is defined as a source category for which
information on individual facilities is not available, and
18
-------
therefore, emissions are reported as an aggregate. These source
categories may contain CAA-defined major and/or area sources, but
are modeled as area sources in the SCRS. Many of the information
sources used to develop the source category list are used in
making emissions estimates.
Exposure Score. The Exposure Score is derived by processing
emission estimates through simplified dispersion algorithms. The
exposure score for each category of sources in the SCRS is a
function of the estimated HAP emissions from the category,
simplified dispersion algorithms, and limited population
information which is either national average population density,
county average population density, or an assumed maximally
exposed individual (MEI). Emissions data were processed through
simplified atmospheric dispersion algorithms to estimate ambient
pollutant concentrations. Dispersion parameters were assumed to
be constant for all pollutants and sources in the SCRS scoring.
The resultant ambient concentrations are then multiplied by
population data to obtain exposure scores.
The exposure scores do not accurately represent actual
population exposure since the many assumptions, constants,
limited population data and estimated 'emissions incorporated into
the score may not accurately represent the actual situation for
any given source category.
Four types of exposure scores are derived in order to match
short- and long-term health effects: long-term maximum exposure,
long-term aggregate exposure, short-term maximum exposure, and
short-term aggregate exposures.
Health Effects Score. The Health Effects Score includes four
general types of health effects: carcinogenic, reproductive,
acute lethality and other toxicities. Each health endpoint was
considered separately in developing health data files for use in
the SCRS.
Toxicity information was obtained from the following data
sources: EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST); the Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), an on-line database
produced by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Cincinnati, Ohio); and the Gene-Tox program. For carcinogens, in
some cases, unit risk estimates were not available from these
data sources, and preliminary estimates were developed by dose-
response modeling and/or through regression analysis using Tumor
Dose 50 data. In these cases, the unit risk factors have not
been peer reviewed and are subject to change. In other cases,
suitable dose-response data were unavailable for potency
estimates, and unit risk estimates were not developed.
19
-------
The reproductive and developmental toxicity effects used the
lowest TDj^o or TC^ value from the RTECS value field for
reproductive effects. The TC^ is the lowest concentration when
the substance is in air. Data extracted from the SCRS consisted
of oral, dermal and inhalation doses, and the routes of exposure
responsible for human exposure to toxic air pollutants.
The acute lethality score encompasses many relevant health
endpoints for short-term exposure, although short-term release
events seldom result in death. The data was based on oral,
dermal, and inhalation exposure data in which chemicals produced
lethal effects in 24 hours or less. Acute lethality was selected
as a health endpoint because data were readily available for
evaluation. An exposure period of less than or equal to 24 hours
was chosen, since this time period generally covers the range of
potential short-term release events.
The endpoint identified as "other toxicity" was included to
address health effects other than carcinogenicity that result
from long-term exposure to toxic air pollutants. Many health
effects including neurological, gastrointestinal, and
respiratory, were considered in the "other toxicity score".
Combining Health and Exposure Scores. The Health Effects and
Exposure Scores were combined in the SCRS to produce the combined
scores used to rank the categories of sources. A long-term
combined score was developed for each pollutant as a product of
its long-term exposure score and its long-term health effects
score. A short-term combined score was developed for each
pollutant as a product of its short-term exposure score and its
short-term health effects score. The short- and long-term
combined scores were added together to create a single combined
score for each pollutant. Exposure scores appeared to have the
most influence on the source category score due to the wide range
of estimated HAP emission quantities released from the various
categories of sources. Scores for each pollutant emitted by a
category of sources were then summed to produce a source category
score. Once the source category scores were determined, the
categories of sources then were ranked by a simple sorting of the
scores.
Source Category Score. Figure 1 (on page 22) provides a
diagram of the SCRS Scoring and Ranking Scheme.
The source category scores are derived by combining the health
effects scores with the exposure scores for each pollutant and
summing the scores for all pollutants emitted by the source
category. The data files contain four different exposure
parameters and a variety of health effect end points. The SCRS
first condenses the health effects data for each pollutant into a
single long-term score and a single short-term score based on
user selection of health effects multipliers. The multipliers
20
-------
specify the types of health effects to consider and the relative
weight to assign to each. In a parallel step, the exposure
scores for each source category are condensed into a single long-
term exposure score and a single short-term exposure score for
each pollutant emitted. '
The SCRS then combines this information to produce the overall
scores for the source category. The exposure scores and health
scores are multiplied to produce a short-term and long-term
pollutant score for each pollutant emitted. Then, the two scores
are combined to form a single score by pollutant, using weighing
factors specified by the user. This weighing factor allows the
user to vary the relative importance placed on long-term and
short-term health effects for the purposes of producing any
single SCRS ranking.
The process ;is repeated for each pollutant that is emitted
from a source category, and the individual pollutant scores are
summed to produce the final scoring for the source category.
Source categories then are ranked by a sorting based on the final
score.
21
-------
Figure l. SCRS Scoring and Ranking Scheme.
^—^—-^-J
topiiAMTa
UMTMB
I
22
-------
AIR
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP)
RANKING SYSTEM
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Offices of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Health and
Environmental Assessment
Contact Person: Cheryl Siegel-Scott, U.S. EPA, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Human Health Assessment
Group, 401 M Street, S.W., Mail Drop 80602, Washington, D.C.
20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-5720.
Jane Caldwell-Kenkel, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Pollutant Assessment Branch, Mail Drop 13, U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Telephone number: (919) 541-0328.
<«
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
Section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act Amendments(CAA) of 1990
calls for a hazard ranking of 189 Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPS). The ranking takes into consideration effects associated
with acute and chronic exposures. Pollutants are categorized in
the context of Agency policy regarding risks associated with low-
level exposures. For cancer, the weight-of-evidence
classification and Effective Dose10 (ED10) values for tumor
incidence were used. For non-cancer, a composite score was
developed which accounted for severity of effect and minimum
effective dose. Identification of acute effects was partially
based on Lethal Concent rat ion50 (LCSO) or Lethal Dose50 (LD50)
estimates. Risk management decisions were made to consider non-
threshold effects and certain acute and high-scored non-cancer
effects as more hazardous that low-scored threshold chronic
effects. No ranking is implied between a nonthreshold effect and
a severe acute effect. (Information presented in the summary is
excerpted from an Abstract submitted to the Society for Risk
Analysis: Considerations in Ranking Hazardous Air Pollutants, C.
Siegel Scott, J. Caldwell-Kenkel, and C. Shoaf, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. Presented at Society for Risk
Analysis Annual Meeting, December 5-8, 1993; Abstract C/F-MAM-I-
04) .
23
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: Industrial facilities requesting a change in
output for determination of allowable emission
trade-offs are reviewed using this ranking system.
Audience: Facility management and State governments.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Trades based only on one critical effect.
• Scales uneven, equivalence is based on policy decisions.
Comparisons of both chronic and acute effects.
Mix of data types, i.e. study quality, design and age.
• Primarily uses oral data for cancer effects.
• Quantitative differences between chemicals based on ordinal
* ranking only.
• Exposure not addressed, system assesses hazard only.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxi city: None.
General: All chemicals classified into 4 (four) bins:
Threshold
Non-Threshold
High Concern
Unrankable
Chronic noncarcinogenic toxicity evaluated
using composite score described below. Used
"ideal study criteria" to chose one composite
score for each chemical.
Composite Score = RVd x RV.
where RVd = Dose Rating
RV, = Severity Rating
24
-------
Condition
logln>-3
•3 < log „, < 3
kgm,>3
Rating
10
1 C/lftf* 1 j. K K
'I'OflQSiSr **'*'
;
•M£D ~ Minimum effective Doss
Subjective Rating Values for Chronic Toodty
CHtet
tot*
Eruyme induction or othtr biochemical change with no pathologic changes and no change in organ weights.
Entyme induction and subceluhr profforation or other changes in organotes tut no other apparent effects.
Hyperplasia. hypertrophy or atrophy but to change « organ weights.
Hyperplasia, hypertrophy, or atrophy with changes in organ weights.
Reversible cellular changes: cloudy swelling, hydropic change, or fatty changes.
Necrosis, or metaplasia with no apparent decrement of organ function. Any neuropathy without apparent behavioral, sensory, or physiologic
changes.
Necrosis, atrophy, hypertrophy, or metaplasia with a detectable decrement of organ functions. Any neuropathy with a measurable change in
behavioral, sensory, or physiological activity.
Necrosis, atrophy, hypertrophy, or metaplasia with definitive organ dysfunction. Any neuropathy with gross changes in behavior, sensory, or
motor performance. Any decrease in reproductive capacity. Any evidence of fetotoncity.
Pronounced pathologic changes with seven organ dysfunction. Any neuropathy with loss of behavioral or motor control or toss of sensory ability.
Reproductive dysfunction. Any teratogenk effect with maternal toacity.
Death or pronounced fie shortening. Any teratogenk effect without signs of maternal toacity.
10
Chronic Toxicity Composite Score
Composite score
>20
<20
Category
High concern
Threshold
Carcinogens: A (known), B (probable), C (possible)
and International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) 1, 2 assigned to Non-Threshold bin.
25
-------
• Within-bin score range = ED10 +/- 3x ED10
range determined by policy decision
overlap between values determines comparable bin.
• Weight of Evidence (WOE) considered qualitatively. •
• Some carcinogens may be assigned to high concern category.
Acute toxicants: assigned to High Concern Category top 33% of LOCs;
LOC = Level of concern derived from Immediately Dangerous
to Life Health and LD^,.
Exposure: None
Ecological: None
Economics: None
Environmental
Justice: None
Other (specify): None
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other: Yes X No
Media Evaluated:
X Air (ambient) Soil Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water Population Only
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Chemical specific ranking for individual facilities.
26
-------
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
X Science Advisory Board (consultation only)
X External (describe: CAA Advisory Committee comprised
of representatives from States and
Extramural organizations.)
X Other (describe: published abstract in the Society for
Risk Analysis Annual Meeting Report)
DATABASE REQUIREMENTS
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: None
Software: None
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
Based on policies stated in Section 112(g) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
REFERENCES
C. Siegel Scott, J. Caldwell-Kenkel, and C. Shoaf (1993).
Considerations in Ranking Hazardous Air Pollutants. • Abstract
in the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, December 5-8,
1993). Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting Final Program
and Abstracts C/F-MAM-I-04). The address for the developers
is: U.S. EPA, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, B.C. 20460.
27
-------
28
-------
AIR
HUMAN EXPOSURE MODEL - 2
Ac ronym: HEM-2
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Contact Person: Michael Dusetzinia, U.'S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Telephone number: (919) 541-5338
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Human Exposure Model-2 (HEM-2) is used to estimate the
concentration of a pollutant at specified distances from emission
sources. The model includes Industrial Source Complex (ISC),
population analyses, and provisions for toxicity evaluations.
29
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To estimate the concentration of a pollutant at
locations specified distances from an emission
source.
Audience: Agency staff and those outside the Agency.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Toxicity data and exposure scenarios are calculated separately
and must be added to the model. Complex terrain must be
addressed using separate models.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: User needs to provide toxicity specific data.
Exposure: Pollutant concentrations calculated at
specified distances from an emission source.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental None.
Justice:
Other Population based on the Bureau of Census
(Population): enumeration district/block (ED/BG) groups. The
population of each ED/BG is assumed to be at
the center of the population's geographic
distribution (centroid).
The model has the capability to perform Monte
Carlo analysis on the results.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity-add in: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
30
-------
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other X Yes No
(Population
and Monte Carlo):
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air (ambient) Soil Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Facility specific.
Output:
Map Relative Ranking
X Other (specify: total annual population exposure based on
the product of the population and the
concentration summed over the total area).
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe:)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: VAX Mainframe/Cluster at the National Computer
Center in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
Software: HEM-2 Model available on the VAX Cluster.
31
-------
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Replaces the HEM-1.
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986). Human Exposure
Model User's Guide. U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-
450/5-86-001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Human Exposure
Model User's Guide-2. U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA-450/3-91-0010.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
HEM-2 incorporates a simple Gaussian-plume dispersion model
with a fixed-location population model. The flat terrain
dispersion models including the Industrial Source Complex Long
Term (ISCLT) are incorporated into HEM-2. HEM-2 estimates
horizontal and vertical dispersion rates. User provided
latitude/longitude information is used to access meteorological
data for the area for use in the model.
The population analysis is carried out using the 1990 Census
Data. HEM-2 analyzes population based on data from the Bureau of
the Census (enumeration district/block groups, ED/BGs). An ED/BG
is the area containing on average about 800 people and can range
from part of a single city block to several hundred square
kilometers depending on population density. The population of
each ED/BG is assumed to be at the center of the population's
geographic distribution (centroid).
The pollutant concentration at the location is interpolated
from the results of the dispersion model. The interpolation is
logarithmic in the radial direction and linear in the azimuthal
direction. The product of the population and the concentration
is summed over the total area used to calculate the total annual
population exposure.
The model provides fields for including unit cancer risk
factors, Reference Concentrations or other toxicity
characteristic information. Risks for the Maximum Exposed
Individual can be calculated based on this additional
information. Depending on the available site-specific data other
exposure scenarios can also be calculated.
32
-------
HEM-2 also allows the substitution of concentration data from
other dispersion models. For distributed sources, such as
perchloroethylene from dry cleaners, area sources were used with
emission rates proportional to area population. The dispersion
model was modified to incorporate the additional dispersion that
comes from surface roughness and heat-island effects. The
correction is included by making some of the parameters depend on
the city geographic area.
The model can not address complex terrain which require use of
other models. The results from complex terrain models can be
incorporated into HEM-2 for further analysis.
A recent modification to the model allows the analysis of data
using Monte Carlo statistical techniques.
33
-------
-------
AIR
ASSESSMENT OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Land Disposal Branch
Contact Person: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Land Disposal Branch, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):2
In 1983, 100 of the 501 RCRA wastes handled by treatment,
storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) were ranked according to
two types of health data, toxic effects and carcinogenic effects.
The calculations for each are:
1. Toxicity Hazard Factor = gas-phase equilibrium concentration
Threshold Limit Value
2. Carcinogenicity Hazard Factor = gas-phase equilibrium concentration
Maximum allowable concentration
at 1 x 10'5 risk level
The Maximum Allowable Concentration at the 1 x 10"5 risk level is
the concentration at which there is a 95% confidence that the
cancer risk limit is 1 in 100,000 people. Each factor is
multiplied by the wastes' aqueous and nonaqueous disposal volumes
in order to generate volume-weighted hazard scores.
A weighing factor is also created from carcinogenicity,
teratogenicity, and acute toxic effects of each contaminant using
data from RTECS (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Bethesda, Maryland). The score for each lies between 0 (zero)
and 3 (three). The hazard scores are multiplied by the weighing
factor. It is unclear whether this system is used today. The
methodology is presented for catalogue completeness.
2 Description of this system was summarized from the OPPTS survey of risk screening systems.
35
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
/
Use: Ranking of 100 of the 501 RCRA wastes handled by
treatment, storage and disposal facilities according
to toxic and carcinogenic effects.
Audience: Agency staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Lacks exposure component. Limited by the availability of
Threshold Limit Values and calculated risks at the .1 x 10'5 level
for each chemical. Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) are developed
for occupational health exposures and include risk management
determinations and assumptions concerning "healthy workers".
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Toxicity Hazard Factor based on gas-phase
equilibrium concentration / TLV.
Carcinogen!city Hazard Factor based on gas-
phase equilibrium concentration / maximum
allowable concentration at 1 x 10"5 risk level) .
Exposure: None.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental-
Justice : None.
Other: None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: Yes X No
36
-------
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other: Yes _X_ No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Facility specific.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking of 100 RCRA wastes
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide '
Science Advisory Board
External (describe):
Other (describe: it appears the methodology may have been
published in a Journal but this could not be confirmed by
the Workgroup).
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: N/A
Software: N/A
37
-------
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Identified in paper developed by the Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office entitled "Examination of the Severity of
Toxic Effects and Recommendations of a Systematic Approach to
Rank Adverse Effects".
REFERENCE
GCA Corporation Technology Division (1983). Assessment of
Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities: Hazardous Waste Ranking. Submitted to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, Land Disposal Branch, Washington, D.C. (September
1983). Contract Number 68-02-3168.
38
-------
AIR
INDEXING SYSTEM FOR COMPARING TOXIC
AIR POLLUTANTS BASED UPON POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Acronym; N/A
Sponsoring Agency: Minnesota State Pollution Control Agency
Division of Air Quality
Contact Person: Gregory C. Pratt, Division of Air Quality,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55155. Telephone number: (612) 296-7664.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
A scientific paper by Pratt et al. (Chemosphere 27: 1359,
1993) describes a method which incorporates information about the
environmental fate and the toxicity (to humans and other species)
of chemicals emitted into the air. The system does not predict
whether an effect will occur, rather it compares chemicals in
terms of their potential to be hazardous. The system indicates
where in the environment a substance is most likely to cause
harmful effects (i.e., which environmental compartment). The
Indexing System assigns numerical values to substances according
to the hazard potential of the substance in any of several
environmental compartments following emission into the air. The
numerical value is the result of a quotient in which model-
predicted potential exposure under a standardized scenario is
divided by toxicity to humans or other organisms under any one of
a set of possible routes of uptake.
39
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
I
Use: To establish priorities for setting and developing
air toxic regulations, information gathering, and
setting appropriate fees ($$/lb) for allowable
emissions. Appropriate fee setting may provide
incentive for emission reduction. This system does
not predict actual concentrations that are expected
to occur in the environment.
Audience: Management of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, but other local agencies may also use the
system.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Limitations include:
• Lack of and low quality environmental degradation data,
specifically, environmental half life
• Lack of readily available environmental impact data to
calibrate models, specifically human health impacts,
environmental receptor impacts, and ecosystem impacts.
• Metals are assessed as total metals, not speciated forms.
• Processes like acidification are not considered.
Quantitative Algorithms:
See: G.C. Pratt, P.E. Gerbec,' S.K. Livingston, F. Oliaei,
G.L. Bollweg, S. Paterson, and D. Mackay (1993). An
indexing system for comparing toxic air pollutants based
upon their potential environmental impacts, Chemosphere
27(8), October, 1993.
Toxicity: (included, see Pratt et al.)
Exposure: (included, see Pratt et al.)
Ecological: (included, see Pratt et al.)
Economics: None.
40
-------
Environmental None.
Justice:
Other Environmental fate (Level 3. fugacity model
(Ecological): Ref: Mackay, D. and Paterson, S. (1992),
Development of a Fugacity-Based Model to
Evaluate the Fate of Organic Chemicals in the
State of Minnesota, Report to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, March. See also
Mackay, D., Paterson S., and Shiu, W.Y. (1992),
Generic Models for Evaluating the Regional Fate
of Chemicals. Chemosphere 24, 695-717.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: Yes X No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other: Yes X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
Air ^ Soil X Mult i-Media
Surface-water Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Originally designed for Minnesota State, but may be applied to
other geographic areas.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify )
41
-------
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
X Other (describe: Initiated by State, using academic and
industry technical advisory committees, published in peer
reviewed j ournal, Chemosphere)
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: IBM PC 386 with 2 megabytes of Random Access Memory
(RAM)
Software: Spreadsheet software (written for Excel)
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency originally wanted to
develop a health based standard but most existing indexing
systems failed to address the overall burden of environmental
pollution. The Agency decided to develop a method for ranking
toxic air pollutants incorporating human health toxicity and
environmental fate and transport characteristics.
REFERENCES
Mackay, D. and S. Paterson. (1992). Development of a
Fugacity-Based Model to Evaluate the Fate of Organic Chemicals
in the State of Minnesota, Report to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, March.
Mackay, D., S. Paterson, and W. Y. Shiu. (1992), Generic Models
for Evaluating the Regional Fate of Chemicals. Chemosphere
24., 695-717.
Pratt, G. C., Gerbec, P.E., Livingston, S. K., Oliaei, F.,
Bollweg, G. L., Paterson, S. and D. Mackay. (1993). An
indexing system for comparing toxic air pollutants based upon
their potential environmental impacts. Chemosphere 27(8).
October, 1993.
42
-------
AIR
1991 MERIT PROJECT FOR
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI)
AIRBORNE CARCINOGENIC RELEASES AND
OBSERVED HUMAN CANCER
MORTALITY RATES
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
Contact Person: Jeffrey J. Burke, U.S. EPA, Region III,
841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.
Telephone number: (215) 597-8327.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The 1991 Merit Project to analyze Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) data evaluates correlations between carcinogenic airborne
releases and observed human cancer mortality rates in Region III.
The database uses 1989 TRI releases and transfers, Cancer Potency
Factors from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and
other sources, and cancer-related mortality rates in Region III
from 1950 to 1979. This system was subsequently replaced by
"Chemical Indexing for the Toxic Chemical release Inventory, Part
I: Chronic Index" (see page 209).
43
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To determine if a positive correlation can be made
between TRI chemical releases and health effects.
Audience: Region III Senior Managers.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The limitations for the TRI and Cancer Mortality datasets are
identified below:
TRI dataset:
• Releases are reported as Ib/year and assumed to be
continuous. No distinction is made regarding the duration
of the release (i.e. one-time accidental release, short
term or continuous).
• The exact location of the release is not specified.
"• Fate and transport of the chemical in air, water or soil
is not considered.
• TRI data are estimated chemical releases based either on
engineering mass balance or materials accounting
calculations.
Cancer Mortality dataset:
• The mortality data does not distinguish between deaths
from exclusive exposure to TRI sources and to sources
other than those reported under EPCRA, e.g. mobile
sources, small stationary sources, consumer products,
etc.
• The mortality data does not contain cancer risk factors
such as smoking habits, income, occupation, lifestyle,
genetic pre-disposition, quality of health care received,
etc., which may obscure and confound the mortality due to
environmental factors.
• The latency period for cancer may range from 20 to 30
years. The mortality database represents deaths during
the years 1959 and 1970. Thus, this study assumes that
the 1989 TRI releases are similar to releases 20-30 years
prior to the mortality dataset and does not consider
changes in environmental laws that may have significantly
changed emissions of many chemicals.
44
-------
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: (Mass * Cancer Potency Factor [CPF])/10,000
where mass =
CPF =
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Other:
TRI total air emissions
Cancer Potency Factor derived from
IRIS, ECAO, or other sources (see
Region Ill's Risk Based
Concentration Table to identify
sources for specific chemicals).
If an inhalation CPF was not
available, the oral CPF was used as
a default.
CPF for Dioxin
10,000
None.
None.
None.
None.
Health Outcome data: Age-adjusted Cancer
Mortality Rates (1959-1970)/ statistically
significant population.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity:
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Other*: X Yes
X Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
X
X
X
No
No
No
No
No
No
* Health outcome: Cancer mortality
45
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Mult i-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Region-wide including states of Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Output:
X Map Relative Ranking
X Other (Correlation statistics between 1989 TRI emissions
and cancer mortality)
Type of Peer Review:
X None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe: )
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: GIS Workstation with UNIX Operating System.
Software: Arc/Info Software.
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and if it replaces any previous indexing
systems):
This was the Hazardous Waste Management Division in Region
Ill's first attempt to correlate human health outcome data with
TRI releases.
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). 1991 MERIT Project
Comparison of SARA Title III Airborne Toxic Release With
Observed Human Cancer Mortality Rates. U.S. EPA, Region III,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
46
-------
AIR
INDOOR AIR QUALITY CLUSTER STRATEGIC
PLANNING MATRIX
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation
Contact Person: Sandra Epperly, U.S. EPA, Indoor Air
Cluster, Office of Air and Radiation, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20460. Telephone number: (202) 233-9722.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Indoor Air Cluster of the Office of Air and Radiation
identified 70 indoor air problems of health concern for
qualitative ranking. Central to the process was the definition
of the indoor air environment as involving human factors
(ergonomics), well being (ranging from the ability to perform
tasks to creativity), and human health effects (ranging from
glare to potential carcinogenic health effects). The 70 problem
areas were evaluated using a matrix which captured information on
25 factors including individual chemical toxicity (e.g.,
carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, other
chronic diseases i.e., lung disease, irritation, other acute
diseases, allergy, physical stress, and psychosocial stress),
exposure/risk, including a measure of confidence in that
information; and economic impacts, overall risk and mitigation
feasibility. Factors considered include economic feasibility of
eliminating the problem using available technology, political
interest, and societal costs. Information was available for a
total of 35 problem areas and these problem areas were
qualitatively ranked based on the factors previously identified.
The ranking included an evaluation of sensitive subpopulations
(e.g., increased incidence of asthma from indoor allergens in
minority populations), central tendency and high end populations.
After compiling the data, the Cluster will rank these 35 problem
areas using qualitative ratings of high, medium and low.
47
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
j.
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To influence Agency strategic planning to address
indoor air quality.
Audience: Agency staff. Future audiences include legislators
and the public.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Limitations were identified in the availability of data on the
various parameters examined in developing the system.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Cancer Slope Factors and concentration data
were utilized where available.
Exposure: Sensitive populations, central tendency and
high end exposures were evaluated.
Ecological: None.
Economics: Technological alternatives and societal costs
were evaluated where data was available.
Environmental Minority subpopulations are often most
Justice: exposed and are impacted by multiple indoor
pollutants. For example, African Americans
have 20% higher incidence of asthma, which is
causally associated with mites and other indoor
allergens.
Other: None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: X Yes No
48
-------
Qualitative Data Analysis - Continued:
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
«
Other*: X Yes No
*(psychosocial and physical stressors including quality of
life issues and impacts on productivity).
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air (indoor) Soil Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Nationwide. Where appropriate, health data from Canada and
Western Europe were used to support rankings.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking (35 problem areas)
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (description: The Cluster has worked with the
Science Advisory Board's Indoor Air Quality Committee
while developing the rankings)
Other (description: ongoing project)
49
-------
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: N/A
Software: N/A
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Ranking is based on prior activities by the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' (OPPTS) Source
Categorization Project. Data from the OPPTS Source Ranking
Database was also used.
REFERENCES
None.
50
-------
4.0 Comparative Risk
As early as 1983, EPA began the Integrated Environmental
Management Project (IEMP) to provide a framework for integrating
data from a variety of sources to make better decisions. The EPA
1987 "Unfinished Business" report built on the experience from
the IEMP projects to rank a total of 31 environmental problem
areas based on health, ecological and welfare impacts. The basic
comparative ranking approach has been used extensively by EPA
regions and states to define specific problem areas and rank
them.
The three comparative risk systems in this section
incorporate computer modeling and Geographic Information System
(CIS) technology to quantify risks and display results. The
Cross-Media Comparative Risk Assessment Model under development
by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality incorporates
algorithms to address fate and transport of chemicals within
different media. The Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS)
combines fate and transport models with data from EPA's national
databases and Bureau of the Census data to estimate potential
exposures for geographic-specific populations. The last system
in this section, the Region VI Human Health Risk Index uses
chemical-specific criteria to compare potential exposures and
toxicities from pollution sources.
51
-------
52
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK MATRIX
See also Indoor Air Quality Cluster Strategic Planning Matrix (page 47)
53
-------
Comparative Risk Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Acronym:
System
Description:
Prtmery Audience:
Legislation:
Geographic
Coverage:
Peer Review*:
Output:
COMPARATIVE
RISK ANALYSIS
N/A
To provide • comparative ranking of 31
ecological end welfare risks. The
Informetlon can be uted for strategic
planning
EPA end sMe manager* and pubac.
None.
National.
Extensively within EPA, by SAB. and
public.
Relative ranking
CROSS-MEDIA COMPARATIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
N/A
Designed to address the relative
Impacts of IM eras t -msdla. transfer of
poiutanU.
OroQon Depertmont of Environmental
QuaMy.
UtM*
nufiv.
State of Oregon.
Internal Mate.
Relative ranking. Map feature to be
added In future.
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE
MODELING SYSTEM
GEMS
A tool to provide comprahai itlve policy
planning support for fate and transport
modelani and risk aiieiiors.
EPA and outside.
Nona.
User-defined
Agency. Available to public
Maps.
Statements of peer-review have been submitted by the personal contact for each system and complied by trie Ad Hoc Wort
further review of the peer-review process presented for the system of interest.
INTEGRATED
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
/
IEMP
Development of tools to eM In the
prtortUzatton of critical environmental
problems.
EPA and state managers and the
public.
None.
Determined by state carrying out
project.
States and EPA regions and program
offices Involved ki projects.
Reports some Including relative
rankings.
REGION VI
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK INDEX
HRI
Tool for gathering and organizing
Information for ctiaiaclenzlng potential
human health Impacts.
EPA and state managers and the
public.
None.
Region VI. Using CIS can select
specific area.
EPA. states, universities. Industry and
public.
Maps. Relative Ranking and statistical
analysis.
group. The workgroup encourages
54
-------
Comparative Risk Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
Acronym;
Year Developed:
Currently Uted:
l^M«4ta^Mm-
rarnww.
SOfTWBTS!
COMPARATIVE
RISK ANALYSIS
NTA
1987, additional Mate project* under
way.
On-going.
NofW.
Nan*.
Statements of peer-review have been submitted by Vt
CROSS-MEDIA COMPARATIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
N/A
1993.
On-going. •
DOS b«Md PC wOh B MEG of RAM
and 30 MEG hard drive.
ORACLE daMMM.
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE
MODELING SYSTEM
GEMS
1906.
On-going.
VAX iirtnhanie at NCC In RTP. NC.
PC vttrvlon also •valtabto.
U.S. Bureau of Cantut STF-la and 3a
dataeet*
StalMlcaltonwan)
NEDS. PCS. AIRS. NPDES.
e personal contact for each system and complied by the Ad Hoc Wort
INTEGRATED
BNVIRONMEMTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
IBMD
ICMr
4HU MI««I^M^M| IM» flw*a«^n^i»*iMaB «^^
iww rafMRMn iff vdmpraivw nvn.
•^•Maa^vaaat l«bt MMMtitaw^kaM vfaaV BMV^^M^M
T^^nK^pa By «on^wm nvt\ iHUfvcu.
Dv|MncHnQ on profKl. UMd In soms
ceM* to develop GIS capabMy.
None.
group. Trie workgroup encourages
REGION VI
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK INDEX
HRI
1992.
Orvoohg.
GIS woffcststlon writh Unix OporatlnQ
•ystom.
AROINFO. d-Bate.
1
further review of the peer-review process presented for the system of Interest.
55
-------
Comparative Risk Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
Acronym!
-Toxtelty
(generally
systems tack
loxfcltydata
fbr many
pollutants:
mm — — —|— H..
especieny
for non-
CercfnOQenS)
(Concentration
Term)
-Chemfcets
Pathways
-Poputatlon
-Other
COMPARATIVE RISK
ANALYSIS
N/A
Llmlled to avaHebls data on cancer risk
factors, slope factors, and weight of
evidence. Non-cancer health affaclc
(cored.
BaMdon avaRabto kifo
Batw) on Mormatlon for Individual
L. —
Depgndont on avallabla Infmniatluii In
probtafn areas.
National poputotlon data tor each
problem area.
None.
CROSS-MEDIA COMPARATIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
N/A
Bated on calculated Human Risk Index
• Exposure X Hazanf.
Exposure • Pop. Den. In area
exposed/Dm, ki community X
Exposure Factor (discharge to media
calculated by tugaclty model)
Hatard • Degree or Impact X
DQQTM of VtibwraMNy.
results tiiiibv fuQccRy fnoow.
BMW! on tvsftabMy of toxteRy njQfldty
Deoendont on results from fuaacKv
model snalysls.
community.
None.
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE
MODELING SYSTEM
GEMS
Toxtelty data can be added by user.
Proxm** (rom facWv used
User can provide
sod, Qroundwater and muNI-media.
None.
INTEGRATED •
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
IEMP
Dependent on stcto project.
Dopdndont ort spocfflc tts4e protect
None.
REGION VI
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK INDEX
HR)
CMCuMed Deojree of Impect
tMvetopeo oesed on wwiQnt of
evidence, non^cejncer toxlcety by ocyen
system, end Outer toxic endpolnts
(muteojentetty, Me end
phermecoklnetict) end popuMlon
vulnerability.
for exposure ere embfent
concentfctlon, occupetloneMjrben
exposure, end exposure fector crfterle
ranked from 0 to 4.
cencer torteSy hifbiiiwlloii.
data.
on activity pettems.
Enforcement.
56
-------
Comparative Risk Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
ACTOnyitl!
ToxWy
-Cancer
* Non-Cancer
' %™?*
2. Reproductive
3. Acute-Short Tarni
4. Chronic
5. Neurotox.
-Data
1. IRIS
2. HEAST
3. TLVs
4. RTECS
5. HSOB
6. Other
Exposure
- Central Tend.
* High End
-MEI
Ecotogfcal
Economics
Ta>r- hr> nlimti
• 1 BUUKJfUyjr
-Other
Env Ironniei rial Justice
Other
COMPARATIVE RISK
ANALYSIS
H/A
X
X
X (fcorlng baaed on
•fled)
X
X
Based on available data.
Qualitative ranking based on expert
tiiilnanmul
juoyornam.
Welfare ranking of problem areas
based on economic Impacis.
Population analytl* Included.
None.
CROSS-MEDIA COMPARATIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
MM
Bated on Region VI Human Health
RHk Index.
Bated on population In the proximity.
Index • Z air Impact* for each tentltlve
environment In the ana mooted/total -
area expoted X degree of vulnerability
X the expoture factor chemical
discharge to media (TUgaclty model) X
degree of Impact of a chemical at
measured by Us toxldty.
None.
.
• v -.
None.
Nor*.
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE
MODELING SYSTEM
GEMS
Can be user defined.
l
Bated on population In proximity.
None.
None.
Population analysis Inchided.
None.
INTEGRATED
ENVIRONMENTAL
(MANAGEMENT PROJECT
IEMP
Dependent on state project.
j
Dependent on state project.
fcifM,,
none.
None.
None.
None.
REGION Vt
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK INDEX
HRI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dependent on degree of vulnerabflfty
used In equations to calculate risk;
Includes subfactors.
None.
None.
See exposure subfactors.
None.
57
-------
Comparative Risk Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
COMPARATIVE RISK
ANALYSIS
CROSS-MEDIA COMPARATIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE
MODELING SYSTEM
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
REGION VI
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK INDEX
OAMHIMhW
AiMssment:
-Cancer
-Non-Cancer
-Exposure
• Ecological
- Economics
- Env. Justice
-Other
Can be added by user.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
enforcement targeting using TRI data.
58
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK
COMPARATIVE RISK ANALYSIS
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Contact Person: Deborah Martin, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, B.C.
20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-2700.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The comparative risk analysis involves the relative ranking of
environmental problems based on human health, ecological and
welfare effects. The first analysis was carried out by the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation in 1987 and reported in
the "Unfinished Business Report". Subsequently, the 10 EPA
Regions, the Science Advisory Board and numerous states have •
developed their own comparative risk analyses to evaluate
potential human health, ecological and welfare effects within
specified geographic areas.
59
-------
Figure 2. Map of the United States Identifying Comparative
Risk Projects Underway or Completed
Status of Comparative Risk Projects
(MoTAufMl I9f3>
60
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To provide data for strategic planning and aid in
prioritizing existing resources.
Audience: Agency managers at the regional and Headquarters
level, state and local managers, and the public.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Data was often unavailable and a qualitative assessment based
on professional judgement was used.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: In the "Unfinished Business Report" the Cancer
Assessment Group's evaluation of the magnitude
of the risk and the weight of evidence were
included. In subsequent assessments, by
regions and states, the Unit Cancer Risk
Factors, Slope Factors and Weight of Evidence
data from the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) and the OSWER Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) were used.
For non-carcinogens the incidence of effects of
the chemicals associated with each problem area
were used and weighted based on the severity of
effects. The methodology included selecting
representative chemicals, and estimating a
potential incidence of exposure:
Incidence = Number of people exposed X chemical
potency.
Chemical Potency = exposure divided by Reference
Dose.
Exposure: Based on available data.
Ecological: The ecological ranking was based on expert
judgement of 1) potential anthropogenic impact
on the environment at the local, regional and
biospheric levels and 2) the severity of the
impact in terms of number of years required for
ecosystem recovery once the stress was removed.
The judgements for a particular environmental
61 '
-------
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
problem were systematically aggregated across
ecosystems to generate a high, medium or low
overall ranking for the problem. The authors
noted that their method was too inexact to try
to establish relative rankings within these
categories.
The welfare ranking included soiling and other
material damages, recreation, natural
resources, damages to other public and
commercial property and ground water supplies,
and losses in aesthetic and non-user values.
The environmental problems were ranked by
consensus through a subjective review of the
extent and cost of existing and potential
damage.
Environmental Justice analyses within
the comparative risk analytical framework are
being developed to adequately identify
communities and subpopulations at potential
risk.
Other (specify) : None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X
Exposure: X
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Other (specify)
X
X
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
62
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
MEDIA EVALUATED:
I
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Nationwide.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking (31 problem areas)
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review (dependent on the group developing the
analysis):
None
X Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
X Internal Agency-wide
X Science Advisory Board
X External (description: reports widely distributed
within and. outside of the Agency).
Other (describe):
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: N/A
Software: N/A
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Based on earlier Integrated Environmental Management projects
(see page 77).
63
-------
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.
Volume I. Overview. Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, B.C. 20460.
(Report available from National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-
4650, Order Number: PB-88127048.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.
Appendix I. Report of the Cancer Risk Work Group. Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, B.C. 20460. (Available from National Technical
• Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650, Order Number: PB-88127055.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.
Appendix II. Non-Cancer Risk Work Group. Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia' 22161,
(703) 487-4650, Order Number: PB-88127063.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.
Appendix III. Ecological Risk Work Group. Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,. D.C.
2Q460. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
(703) 487-4650, Order Number: PB-88127071.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.
Appendix IV. Welfare Risk Work Group. Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
(703) 487-4650, Order Number: PB-88127089.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989). Comparing
Risks and Setting Environmental Priorities. Overview of Three
Regional Projects. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. (August 1989).
64
-------
Science Advisory Board Analysis:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection. Science Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. SAB-EC-90-021.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection. Appendix A. Report of the Ecology and Welfare
Subcommittee. Science Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. SAB-EC-90-021A,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection. Appendix B. Report of the Human Health
Subcommittee. Science Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. SAB-EC-90-021B.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection. Appendix C. Report of the Strategic Options
Subcommittee. Human Health Subcommittee. Science Advisory
Board, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. SAB-EC-
90-021C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). A Guide
Book to Comparing Risk and Setting Environmental Priorities.
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA 230-B-93-003. (September
1993) .
Contacts for State, Tribal and Territory Projects:
Northeast Center for Comparative Risk, Vermont Law School,
P. 0. Box 96, Chelsea Street, South Royalton, Vermont 05068.
Contact: Ken Jones, Acting Director (802) 763-2920.
Western Center for Comparative Risk, P. O. Box 7576,
Boulder, Colorado 80306.
Contact: Kate Kramer, (303) 494-6393.
65
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The description presented here is based on the original
"Unfinished Business Report". Figure 2 page 60 provides a map of
the United States identifying areas where other comparative risk
projects are underway or completed. Information on contacts for
the other comparative risk projects developed following the
original "Unfinished Business Report" are presented in the
Reference Section.
The original "Unfinished Business" report ranked 31
environmental risks posed to society to aide EPA's efforts to
prioritize resources. The environmental problems were defined
along existing program lines e.g., criteria air pollutants,
hazardous air pollutants, contaminants in drinking water,
Superfund sites, pesticide residues on food, worker exposure to
toxic chemicals, etc. The ranking system that the authors
employed has been published and peer reviewed by the Science
Advisory Board.
- Four different types of risks were evaluated for each
environmental problem: cancer and non-cancer health effects,
ecological effects and welfare effects (visible impairment,
materials damage, etc.). These risk evaluations did not consider
the economic or technical controllability of the risks or the
benefits to society of the activities causing the environmental
problems. No attempt was made to combine the risk evaluations,
so in effect four separate rankings of the 31 problems were
generated.
The risk assessments were based on pollutant exposure and
effects data. However, because the data were largely incomplete
and the methodologies for evaluating them were not fully
developed, assessments were ultimately based on the collective
informed judgement of the experts involved. Wherever possible,
these judgements were made using formal and systematic methods.
For carcinogenic assessments, the former Carcinogen Assessment
Groups's evaluation of the magnitude of risk was included. Final
rankings were based on the judgement of the weight of evidence
and the magnitude.
For non-cancer the incidence of effects of the chemicals
associated with each problem area and weighted by severity of
effects was used. The methodology began by selecting a few
representative chemicals, for which incidence of exposure was
estimated:
Incidence = # of people exposed X chemical potency
Chemical potency = exposure dose divided by reference dose
66
-------
For ecological risk the authors attempted a broad assessment
of environmental impacts of all kinds of ecosystems from
terrestrial and freshwater types to marine and estuarine types.
Each environmental problem was ranked by subjective consensus as
high, medium or low for each type of ecosystem. The rankings
were based on expert judgement of 1) potential anthropogenic
impact on the environment at the local, regional and biospheric
levels and 2) the severity of the impact in terms of number of
years required for ecosystem recovery once the stress was
removed. The judgements for a particular environmental problem
were systematically aggregated across ecosystems to generate a
high, medium or low overall ranking for the problem. The authors
noted that their method was too inexact to try to establish
relative rankings within these categories.
The welfare ranking included soiling and other material
damages, recreation, natural resources, damages to other public
and commercial property and ground water supplies, and losses in
aesthetic and non-user values. The environmental problems were
ranked by consensus through a subjective review of the extent and
cost of existing and potential damage.
67
-------
68
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK
CROSS-MEDIA COMPARATIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Contact Person: Marianne Fitzgerald and Regina Bridwell,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 South
West 6th Street, Portland, Oregon 97204. Telephone
numbers: (503)229-5946 (Marianne) and (503) 229-6913
(Regina).
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Cross-media Comparative Risk Assessment Model is a
screening tool developed by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality to evaluate cross-media impacts of
pollutants and the relative risks to human health and the
environment.
For human health risks a Human Risk Index (HRI) is calculated.
The HRI is derived by multiplying the exposure (comprised of
population density in the area exposed/population density in the
community X chemical discharged to media as calculated by a
fugacity model) X Hazard (degree of impact of a chemical as
measured by its toxicity X degree of vulnerability of the
population living within the exposed community).
For ecological risk an Ecological Risk Index (ERI) is
calculated. The ERI is derived by multiplying the Exposure (sum
of the air of impact for each sensitive environment in the area
exposed/total area exposed X Degree of Vulnerability of the
sensitive environment within the exposed area) X Hazard (exposure
factor chemical discharge to media as calculated by the fugacity
model X degree of impact of a chemical as measured by its
toxicity).
The model is a simple screening tool including a limited
number of parameters to assess risks to human health and the
environment. The model is still in the developmental stage.
69
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: The Cross-media comparative risk assessment model is
designed to address the relative impacts of the
cross-media transfer of pollutants. Applications
include: rule writing or permitting, evaluating
toxic use reduction alternatives, and enforcement
targeting.
Audience: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality staff,
industry, and other interested parties.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The model was designed to be a simple screening tool. A
limited number of parameters were selected as the basis for
quantifying risks to human health and the environment. The model
is still in the field testing stage.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: The Human Risk Index is indicated below:
Human Risk Index
Exposure X Hazard
(PE/PC x Ef) (DI X DV)
where:
HRI = Human Risk Index
PE = Population density in area exposed
PC = Population density in the community
Ef = Exposure factor (chemical discharge to
media as calculated by the fugacity model)
DI = Degree of Impact of a chemical as
measured by its toxicity
DV = Degree of vulnerability of the
population living within the exposed community.
Exposure: Based on population density and results from
fugacity modeling.
Ecological: Based on Ecological Risk Index (ERI).
ERI =
Exposure X Hazard
[(Sum (AI/AE X (DV)] X {Ef X DI)
where:
ERI = Ecological Risk Index
AI = Area of impact for each sensitive
environment in the area exposed
70
-------
AE = Total area exposed
EF = Exposure factor (chemical discharge
to media as calculated by the fugacity model)
DI = Degree of•impact of a chemical as
measured by its toxicity
DV = Degree of vulnerability of the
sensitive environments within the exposed area.
Economics: None.
Environmental
Justice: None.
Other: None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes . No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other: Fugacity X Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
Air Soil X Cross-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.) :
Oregon state but can be adjusted to address other geographic
areas.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify, Map feature to be added in future )
71
-------
Type of Peer Review:
.None
X Internal state specific (limited)
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe: )
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: DOS-based PC with 8 megabytes of RAM; 12-16
recommended.
Software: Oracle Database with 25-30 megabytes of ROM. SqL
Forms (2.3); SqL Menu (5), SqL plus table and
Oracle (6) .
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was
awarded a grant from the U.S. EPA to develop a methodology for
incorporating cross-media risk assessment considerations into DEQ
programs. The model was developed as a tool to be used for
identifying cross-media impacts and developing a more integrated
approach to problem solving that enhances DEQ's goal of pollution
prevention. The model was adapted from a quantitative model
developed by Dr. Gerald Carney in EPA Region VI (see Region VI
Human Health Risk Index page 81).
REFERENCES
None.
72
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE MODELING (GEMS)
SYSTEM
Acronym: GEMS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division.
Contact Person: Cathy Turner or Sandra Holister, U.S. EPA,
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Office of
Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone numbers: (202)
260-3929 (Cathy) and (202) 260-3390 (Sandra).
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) is an
interactive computer system that can be run on a DOS-based
Personal Computer. GEMs allows the assessment of the fate of
chemicals in a geographically specified environment and the
modeling and estimate of potential exposure and risk for the
population. GEMS has a variety of models for air, surface water,
soil, groundwater and multi-media analysis.
GEMS can be used with data from the Toxic Release Inventory,
Permit Compliance System (Water Permit Compliance), National
Emissions Data System (NEDS), and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Survey (NPDES). Other data that can be accessed
includes demographic information from the Bureau of the Census,
air, water, climate information, and soil characteristics.
73
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: As a tool to provide comprehensive policy planning
support for fate and transport modelers and risk
assessors.
Audience: EPA risk assessors, environmental managers, and fate
and transport modelers. The PC version of the
system is available to non-EPA staff on request.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The system provides for minimal interaction between data sets.
Information availability varies among data sets. The system
facilitates risk analyses only.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Can be added to system.
Exposure: Yes.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental None.
Justice:
Other: (Fate Fate and transport algorithms for air,
and Transport) surface water, soil, groundwater and multi-
media are available.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity (add-in) : X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
74
-------
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (Fate and X Yes No
Transport*):
* Environmental sources of pollutants are qualitatively presented
for a few data bases.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.) :
U. S. where appropriate data are available.
Output:
X Map Relative Ranking
Other (specify:
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
X Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
X External (describe: available to the public)
Other (describe:)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: VAX Mainframe/Cluster at the EPA National Computer
Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
75
-------
Software: PC version available on request.
Data from national databases as required (i.e.,
NEDS, PCS, AIRS, and NPDES).
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
GEMS was originally designed in 1981 for EPA scientists in the
Office of Research and Development and modelers who needed a tool
to provide comprehensive policy planning support to EPA
administrators. GEMS is now available to any requester through
the EPA VAX cluster or through the PC version.
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Graphical Exposure
Modeling System, User's Manual. U. S. EPA, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Inventory of
Exposure Related Data Systems. Sponsored by Federal Agencies.
U. S. EPA, Office of Health Research, Washington, D.C.
EPA/600/R-92/078. (May 1992).
76
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Acronym: IBMP
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Integrated
Environmental Management Division
Contact Person: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Integrated
Environmental Management Division, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., tcocicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Integrated Environmental Management Program's (TEMP) goal
was to prioritize environmental problem areas according to both
ecological and human health risk. The IEMP was carried out in
the early 1980's and was later replaced by the Comparative Risk
Evaluations described in this chapter (pages 59-68). The program
generated relative rankings based on the severity of
environmental problem areas.
The lEMP's included a number of state pilot projects designed
to aid in assembling, managing .and interpreting environmental
data for decision-making. The media evaluated included air,
water and hazardous waste. National data sets included NEDS,
PCS, HWDMS, Census, NPDES permits, health effects and dispersion
modeling. At the state level, data on emission inventories,
discharge permits, waste manifests, and underground storage tank
leak detection. At the local level, data from drinking water and
pretreatment data, industrial discharge monitoring, waste
handling, groundwater usage and contamination were used.
77
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: The IEMP was intended to prioritize Agency
responses to critical environmental problems.
Audience: EPA and state managers, and the public. The IEMP
helped to educate the public as to the severity of
environmental risks.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Availability of environmental data. Limitations of computer
programs and hardware to analyze large datasets.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxi city: Unknown.
Exposure: Unknown.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental
Justice: None.
Other (specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes X No
78
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air (indoor) X Soil _X_ Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Varied based on the determinations of the assessor or manager.
This assessment is more qualitative than Comparative Risk
Assessment (pages 59-68).
Output t
Map X Relative Ranking
Other^ (specify )
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region-specific (where IEMP projects were
carried out)
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe):
Other (describe: )
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Depending on the application developed by the
individual states various hardware was used. For
example, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection incorporated the
development of a Geographic Information System as
part of their project. Other states used
different methods.
Software: PIPQUIC was used by some states during the
projects. Various federal, state and
local databases were used including: NEDS, PCS,
HWDMS, Census, NPDES permits, dispersion modeling.
79
-------
State datasets included emission inventories,
discharge permits, waste manifests, and
underground storage leak detection. Local
datasets included drinking water and pretreatment
data, industrial discharge monitoring, waste
handling, groundwater usage and contamination. .
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
The IEMP projects were replaced by the Comparative Risk
Analysis shown in this chapter.
REFERENCES
Project specific reports were prepared at the time of the
projects but were not readily available at time of this printing.
80
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK
REGION VI HUMAN HEALTH RISK INDEX
Acronym: HRI
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VI.
Contact Person: Gerald Carney, Region VI, U.S. EPA,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Telephone
number: (214) 655-6523.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Region VI Human Health Risk Index (HRI) establishes
chemical specific criteria to compare potential exposures and
toxicities from pollution sources. The methodology serves to
identify and document chemical releases, toxicities, exposure
pathways, susceptible populations and demographic information
(i.e., population density, age, pregnancy, and economic status)
Portions of the HRI can be used separately for environmental
justice and enforcement targeting studies.
81
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
I
Use: The Region VI HRI system is used as a data
gathering and organizing tool for characterizing
potential human health risk.
Audience: Environmental regulators, risk managers and risk
assessors.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The system qualitatively characterizes and ranks pollution
sources. The system does not quantify risk and is not a risk
assessment model. The exposure and dose information included is
limited.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Degree of Impact (DI)
DI = Y25
c ( A 4. TR \ 4- 1 1 ( c
L \*» T f-iDi I T If V V»
^™"1— "A * * O
7
+ D + E)]
where: A = EPA Weight of Evidence Designation
for carcinogens
B = Non-Cancer toxicity (by organ system)
,subfactors of non-cancer:
health effects include:
Teratology
Respiratory
Neurological
Hematopoietic-Lymphatic
Cardiovascular
Skin, Skeleton, Muscular
Digestive,' Endocrine)
i = Summation of non-cancer impacts
C = Mutagenicity
D = Environmental fate
E = Pharmacokinetics
• DI criteria are ranked from 1 to 5
• Population vulnerability criteria are
documented.
82
-------
Exposure: Exposure Factor (EF) ?= EEFi/2
where: subf actors for exposure are Ambient
Concentration and Occupational -Urban
exposure, exposure .factor criteria
are ranked from 0 to 4.
Ecological : None
Economics : None
Environmental
Justice: See Degree of Vulnerability.
Other: Degree of Vulnerability (DV)
Where : Subfactors include
Age
Pregnancy
Lifestyle
Genetics -ethnicity
Pre-existing disease
Economic status
83
-------
Human Health Risk Index Concept
HRI = Exposure • Hazard
HRI = (Population Ratio • Exposure Factor) x (Dl • DV)
Human Health Risk Index Formula (HRI)
HUMAN HEALTH RISK INDEX FORMULA (HRI)
Summation of Degrees of Vulnerability
Summation of Degrees of Impact
HRI=TnI (PE/PC • Ef)(DI,
j-1 i-O
HRI Human Health Risk Index
n Number of Degrees of Impact
PE Population Exposed
PC Total Population of a County
Ol, Degree of Impact
DV, Degree of Vulnerability
v Number of Degrees of Vulnerability
Ef Exposure Factor
84
-------
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes _X_ No
Economics: X Yes No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other: X Yes No
enforcement targeting
using Toxic Release
Inventory Data)
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Multi-Media
X Surface Water Ground Water X Population
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ,,
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Region VI (states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico
and Texas).
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
X Other (Statistical Analysis)
Type of Peer Review (for HRI and/or Environmental Justice -
Enforcement Targeting Applications):
None
X Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board (consult only)
External (states, universities, industry, community
groups).
Other (describe: International presentations have been
made).
85
-------
DATABASE REQUIREMENTS
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: CIS Workstation with-Unix Operating System.
Software: ARC/INFO, d-Base, and Bureau of the Census data.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and whether it replaces any previous indexing
systems):
Region VI's Human Health Risk Index is a continually developing
computerized system. Although the system can be used to rank
pollution sources, the system's current function is to document
and organize potential chemical and exposure risks using a
consistent set of ranking criteria. The HRI is the framework for
Region VI's human health and welfare comparative risk analyses
(pages 57-68). Designed in 1990 as a comparative risk algorithm,
it is used in concert with ecological and economic/welfare*risk
formulas. Region VI plans to meld these three algorithms to
assess the "Human/Ecological risks" of defined areas. The HRI is
also separated into smaller components to address "special
applications" such as environmental justice and enforcement
targeting studies.
The HRI does not replace any existing system in Region VI.
REFERENCES
Under development.
86
-------
5.0 Enforcement
Two ranking systems used for enforcement were identified. The
first, the Multi-Media Ranking System (MMRS)1 is being developed
jointly by EPA's, Offices of Research and Development and
Enforcement. The second system, the Risk Based Multimedia
Targeting System is being developed by Region X. The goal of
both systems is to identify facilities for compliance
inspections.
The MMRS combines data from the Facility Subsystem of the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), and the Toxic Release Inventory System
(TRIS) to rank sites for enforcement activities and assess the
effectiveness of environmental laws in reducing risks from these
sites. The system includes an exposure analysis based on a "high
end" individual defined as a 6 year old child. The toxicity
ranking is based on tiered Reportable Quantity (RQ) values. The
final score is based on releases to air, surface water and land,
and both on-site releases and off-site transfers, and is based on
total releases. The PC computer program produces pre-formatted
electronic files that can be reviewed using spreadsheet software.
The Region X system is designed to target permitted facilities
that pose the highest potential risk to human health and the
environment. The analysis is based on historical facility
compliance violation data from the IDEA database (Integrated Data
for Enforcement Analysis), data from TRIS and an analysis of the
population around the facility using Bureau of Census data. Best
professional judgement is used to rank the relative toxicity of
each chemical by pathway using Maximum Exposed Individual
assumptions.
1The MMRS has been renamed as the Risk Based Enforcement Strategy (KBES).
87
-------
00
CO
-------
ENFORCEMENT
See also
Region VI Human Health Risk Index (page 81)
Region III Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Part I: Chronic Index
(page 209)
89
-------
Enforcement Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Acronym:
System
Description:
Primary Audience:
Legislation:
Geographic
Coverage:
Peer Review*:
Output:
MULTI-MEDIA RANKING SYSTEM
MMRS
Scoring system to rank site* for enforcement activities and assess
the effectiveness of environmental law* In reducing risks from these
•Das. Tha itralagy cantidera radort such at muRMnadla ratoasai of
podulanti. rtek to human health and the environment, and the history
of violation* at that «»«
EPA *tafl opecWy In the Oflfcei or Rewerch and Devetopmeot and
Enforcement.
Environmental ttalute* enforced by EPA.
National.
Sy*tem under development.
Relative ranking of facWUet In tpreadtheat format.
REGION X RISK BASED MULTIMEDIA TARGETING SYSTEM
None.
To compare and rank Region X fadUtte* that DOM the greatest
potential risk to human health and/or the environment for
EPA regional staff (I.e.. enforcement coordinator*, Division
Directors, Regional Administrators, etc.).
Environmental statutes enforced by EPA.
Region-specific.
Limited regional review.
Relative Ranking of Individual components and table of facMttes.
Workgroup encourages further review of the peer-review process presented for the system of interest.
90
-------
Enforcement Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
Year Developed:
Currently Uted:
Hardware:
Software:
MULTI-MEDIA RANKING SYSTEM
Yet.
.
RTF, N.C. that eonlalnt the AFS-AIRS, TRIS and PCS databatet.
MMRS VOVnVM.
AFS-AIRS, TRIS. and PCS.
Spreadsheet. - '
REGION X RISK BASED MULTIMEDIA TARGETING SYSTEM
1992.
Yet.
AIRS. PCS and TRIS) or EPA't IDEA tvttem.
G1S workstation wRh
IDEA. AIRS. PCS. TrtiS" datebeeet
CIS workstation.
91
-------
Enforcement Systems Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
• Toxlctty
(generally
systems lack
toxteltydata
for many
pollutants:
especially
for non-
carcinogens).
-Exposure
(Concentration
Term)
- Chemicals
-Exposure
Pathways
-Population
-Other
MULTI-MEDIA RANKING SYSTEM
Based on ATSDR yearly M of hazardous substances at Superfund
sites. Reportabto quantities sre used. Potential for some chemicals
not to be assessed based on the lack of RQ.
Based on screening level model of potential doses associated with a
given release amount.
Chemicals wMiRQ Identified ki national databases. Atotatof345
chBcntertt.
Intotatton, fteh consumption, rtc.
trr Jan Jl ail awM_*Mt
"UIW lim •OO-vn.
Rankkigs of sites based on ralaases to air, surface water, and land,
both for on-sKe releases and for off-site transfers and based on total
release.
r *
REGION X RISK BASED MULTIMEDIA TARGETING SYSTEM
BMod on pTof6Sskxwl JudQAmonl.
n
IndtvWiMri.
TRI cnwnlcjrh.
Db4d wid (ndfrsct.
UMCfftMIKMa
RcMlvc rankkiQ of •(!••.
92
-------
Enforcement System Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
Toxtelty
-Cancer
-Non-Cancer
1. Aggregate
2. Reproductive
3. Acute-Short Term
4. Chronic
5. Nourotox.
-DM*
1. IRIS
2. HEAST
3. TLVt
4. RTECS
5. MSB
6. Other
Expoture
- Central Tend.
-High End
-MEI
EcoloQlcd
Economics
• Technology
•Other
Environment*! Juttlce
Other
MULTI-MEDIA RANKING SYSTEM
T
Bated on btnotng ipproech of reMlve taddly using 1/RQ.
X (Bated on risk* to 6 yew old chid)
"
None.
None.
See expoture.
None.
REGION X RISK BASED MULTIMEDIA TARGETING SYSTEM
B«ied on but profeMlonrt Judgement.
X
Geographic tweed.
Mono.
See expoture
None.
93
-------
Enforcement Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
Qualitative
Asse*«nen(:
-Cancer
-Non-Cancer
-Exposure
- Ecotoplcal
- Economics
- Env. Jut.
-Other
MULTI-MEDIA RANKING SYSTEM
X
X
X
1
X
REGION X RISK BASED MULTIMEDIA TARGETING SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
... . . .
94
-------
ENFORCEMENT
MULTI-MEDIA RANKING SYSTEM*
Acronym: MMRS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Exposure
Assessment Group
Contact Person: Karen Hammerstrom, U.S. EPA, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone Number: (202) 260-8919.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
In 1991, EPA's Offices of Research and Development and
Enforcement began work on a method to rank sites for enforcement
activities. The methodology is based on a system developed by
Region X (page 103), which considered the following factors:
• Chemical Ranking Factor - based on chemical-specific criteria
(human and environmental effects, physical-chemical
properties, transport and transformation mechanisms, and
chemical- and pathway-specific releases;
• Vulnerability Ranking Factor - based on the properties of the
environment surrounding the site, such as climate, soil type,
and hydrogeology,
• 'Population Ranking Factor - based on demographic
characteristics of the population and
• Enforcement history.
The goals of the strategy are to develop methods for ranking
sites for enforcement activities and assessing the effectiveness
of environmental laws in reducing risks from these sites. The
strategy considers a number of factors including: multi-media
releases of pollutants, risk to human health and the environment,
and the history of violations at the site.
' The multimedia Ranking System has been renamed RBES: Risk-Based Enforcement Strategy.
95
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: Ranking of sites for enforcement activities and
assessing the effectiveness of environmental laws
in reducing risks from the,se sites. The strategy
considers factors such as multi-media releases of
pollutants, risk to human health and the
environment, and the history of violations at the
site.
Audience: Agency staff especially in Offices of Research and
Development and Enforcement.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The information analyzed for this report is based on the
prototype design for the MMRS. It is anticipated that
modifications will be made to this system which will include
additions such as Stream Dilution Factor Program use, and
different approaches for calculating the toxicity scores. The
limitations listed here are based on the prototype.
Limitations of each of the national databases (i.e., AIRS,
TRIS and PCS). Variations across the systems include: facility
locational accuracy, differences in chemicals required to be
reported, and sampling requirements for data reported.
Site specific exposure information was not available. The
systems incorporate EPA exposure assessment assumptions for
"typical values". The system lacks information on the "central
tendency" exposed individual.
Land-based exposures were not considered for further analysis.
In addition, no loss from reactivity/transformation was assumed.
The exposure was calculated for only a single year of releases,
potential accumulations over time were not considered.
Toxicity data was available for only 345 chemicals. The
current system does not address Weight of Evidence schemes,
multiple endpoints, and severity of effects.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: MMRS uses a toxicity score equal to the
inverse of the RQ. The toxicity scores
range from 1 for highly toxic chemicals
such as 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine to 0.0002
for less toxic chemicals such as acetone.
96
-------
Exposure: Based on computer models for 10 exposure
pathways and "high end" assumptions based
on a 6 year old child's exposure. A
Release Adjustment (RA) factor is
developed for each exposure pathway. The
RA factor is a value that when multiplied
by an annual release amount (kg/yr) yields
a potential exposure dose (mg/kg-day).
The RA factor is essentially a dilution
factor incorporating unit conversions and
is expressed as a per unit body weight.
The RA factor allows the analyst to
examine the importance of the various
pathways with respect to one another, and
also to test the sensitivity of model
input parameters with respect to potential
exposure. The larger the RA factor, the
greater the predicted exposure.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental See exposure section for discussion
Justice: of population ranking factors.
Other: None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes ' X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental : Yes X No
Justice:
Other: Yes X No
97
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
_2L_ Air _x_ Soil X Multi-Media
_X_ Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.) :
User specified based on computer interface. MMRS can analyze
for region-wide, state-wide, county-wide or city-wide areas.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking in Lotus Format
Other (specify )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe):
X Other (describe: system in initial development stage)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Communication and access to EPA's National
Computer Center to use AFS-AIRS, TRIS, and PCS.
Software: PC with spreadsheet and MMRS software.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Development began in 1991 as a joint effort between EPA's
Office of Research and Development and Office of Enforcement.
The MMRS is based in part on Region X's risk based multi-media
targeting system (page 103).
98
-------
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Report by
Versar, Inc. (1993) Risk Based Enforcement Strategy II.
Draft Report, under Contract No. 68-DO-0101, Task No. 93-05.
to EPA.
Appendix A. Derivation of Release Adjustment Factors.
Appendix B. Source Code for Mainframe Portion of MMRS
Information System.
Appendix C. Source Code for PC Portion of MMRS Information
System.
Appendix D. User's Guide for the MMRS Information System.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The currently defined facilities for which relevant
information exists in national databases are the Facility
Subsystem of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AFS-
AIRS), the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Toxic Release
Inventory System (TRI).
The multi-media ranking system under development by ORD
addresses the Chemical Ranking Factor.
Facility Information. The data contained in the three
information systems used in the ranking are
• AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) with facility level data
primarily from SIC Code 4911 (coal-burning and other power
plants),
• PCS containing data primarily from SIC Code 4952 (sewerage
systems) including data from the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System on permits to facilities discharging
wastewater into navigable waterways, and
• TRI data for SIC Codes 2000 - 3999 (manufacturing) and
subject to EPCRA reporting, including data for over 300
specific chemicals and 20 chemical groups.
Exposure. One approach taken to calculate the chemical
ranking factor is multiplying straight releases (in
kilograms/year) directly reported from national databases by the
toxicity score. The second approach involves conducting exposure
analysis for chemical releases to air, water and land.
Potential exposure analysis pathways, such as inhalation and
contaminated fish consumption, are identified for each point of
j.
99
-------
release. For each pathway, an exposure scenario based on "high
end" exposure is developed and an appropriate screening level
model is utilized.to determine potential doses associated with a
given release amount. Scenario, model, and parameter uncertainty
are evaluated. The decision to use straight releases or exposure
adjusted releases is based on the uncertainty and sensitivity of
model input parameters and the results of a case study analysis
of release data from 25 test facilities.
The first step in the exposure analysis is to identify
exposure pathways and develop exposure scenarios. Beginning with
each medium of release (air, water or land), all potential
pathways leading to human exposure were diagrammed and grouped
into "tiers", where crossing into a different media constitutes a
move into a different tier. For example, deposition and
subsequent ingestion of airborne particulates is a "tier 2"
exposure pathway. Only tier 1 and 2 pathways were evaluated
quantitatively.
Concurrent with identifying exposure pathways, specific
exposure scenarios were devised. The target population for these
exposure scenarios is the "high end" exposed individual. The
"high end" scenarios are based primarily on location assuming
that the exposure takes place at the point where maximum
pollutant concentration occurs according to the exposure model
employed. The "high end" individual is further defined as a 6
year old child. Other exposure factors (i.e., inhalation rate,
skin surface area, wind speed, and soil mixing depth) are set at
levels approximating the central tendency or "typical value"
based on past EPA exposure assessment work.
The media exposure pathway utilizes a screening model to
predict pollutant concentration at the point of exposure and is
based on the least complicated model appropriate for the purpose.
The models requiring the minimum number of input parameters were
selected. The air-based model is a simple Gaussian plume model.
For water based exposures, complete immediate mixing with the
receiving water mean flow is assumed. Land-based exposures are
not considered'for further analysis because of the difficulty in
determining potential leachate concentration given the wide
variability in landfill sizes and control technologies and the
difficulty in determining a central tendency distance from the
point of release to the exposed individual. For all media no
loss from reactivity/transformation is assumed. In addition,
exposure potential is calculated for only a single year of
releases (i.e., accumulation over time is not considered).
The ten exposure pathways considered are: drinking water
ingestion, dermal contact while swimming, dermal contact while
showering, inhalation of volatile pollutants during showering,
and contaminated fish and shellfish consumption. The remaining
pathways include direct inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal
100
-------
contact with soil, ingestion of vegetation contaminated by
pollutant deposition, and ingestion of vegetation contaminated by
uptake of pollutants from the vapor phase.
Toxicity Ranking. The prototype toxicity ranking is based on
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry yearly list
of hazardous substances found at facilities on the CERCLA
(Superfund) National Priorities List using the Reportable
Quantities (RQs) tired ranking (i.e., 1, 10, 100, 1,000, 5,000
pounds). The RQs are based on acute toxicity, chronic toxicity,
carcinogenicity, aquatic toxicity, and, ignitability and
reactivity. MMRS uses a toxicity score equal to the inverse of
the RQ. The toxicity scores range from 1 for highly toxic
chemicals such as 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine to 0.0002 for less toxic
chemicals such as acetone.
Scoring. The methodologies capable of providing rankings of
sites are based on releases to air, surface water, and land, both
for on-site releases and for off-site transfers, and based on
total releases.
Computer Output. Data from the facility subsystem of the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System, the Permit Compliance
System (PCS), and the Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) are
stored as SAS data sets on EPA's mainframe computer. A mainframe
computer program was developed that allows the user to select
facilities based on a number of variables and combine the
chemical release information from the PCS, TRI and AIRS datasets.
The data is downloaded from the mainframe computer to the PC for
further analysis. The PC datafile contains preliminary chemical
specific toxicity scores based on the inverse of the chemical's
RQ. The PC computer program was written in PASCAL to combine the
downloaded file containing chemical release information with
chemical specific toxicity information. The scores are based on
facility, medium, and chemical. The PC program produces pre-
formatted reports in addition to electronic files usable by
spreadsheet software.
101
-------
102
-------
ENFORCEMENT
REGION X RISK BASED MULTIMEDIA
TARGETING SYSTEM
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Services Division, Region X
Contact Person: Bill Schmidt, Jim Hileman, Ray Peterson, and
Mike Watson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Telephone Number:
(206) 553-1526.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
Region X's Environmental Services Division staff developed a
process to target permitted facilities that pose the highest
potential risk to human health and the environment for multi-
media compliance inspections. The Region X Risk Based Multi-
media Targeting System utilizes computerized historical facility
compliance violation data; Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)
data for each facility and its associated estimated relative
toxicity by pathway; and a sensitivity evaluation of the setting
around each facility. Quantitative values were determined for
each of these components and combined to rank each of the
facilities within the Region.
103
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To compare and rank Region X facilities that pose
the greatest potential risk to human health and/or-
the environment for consideration as candidates
for multimedia compliance inspections.
Audience: To be used by the Regional enforcement
coordinators, Division Directors, Regional
Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators
as a tool for determining where Regional
inspection resources should be applied.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The Region X Risk Based Multimedia Targeting System is used as
a comparative tool and has several limitations and uncertainties.
Each component is dependent on the environmental data available
for evaluation. The area of greatest uncertainty is in the
determination of the relative toxicity of the TRIS data. Best
professional judgement was used to rank the relative toxicity of
each chemical by pathway using several assumptions and
conditions.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Best Professional Judgement.
Exposure: Maximum Exposed Individual.
Ecological: Geographic based system.
Economics: None.
Env i ronment a1
Justice: Census data used.
Other (specify): Compliance history using IDEA.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: , Yes X No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: X Yes No
104
-------
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
•
Other (compliance X Yes No
history):
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
. X Air ? Soil X Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Region X.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking of Individual Components
X Other (specific Table of Facilities)
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region specific (limited review by compliance
programs on facility violation criteria, staff on
process and components of system and consistency of
application)
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
X External (describe: limited review by state compliance
staff)
Other (describe: )
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Mainframe access to media program compliance
systems (i.e., AIRS, PCS or TRIS) or EPA
105
-------
Headquarters IDEA system. Data General Avion
Workstation for CIS analysis.
Software: GIS data layers for variety of sources i.e.,
STORET, TRI, etc.
Historical Background (information on,how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Basis for the Multi-media ranking system.
REFERENCES
None.
106
-------
6.0 Environmental Justice
A total of four systems were identified that specifically
assess the demographic characteristics of populations. Many
other systems identified within the catalogue also include
population components. Three of the systems are designed to
evaluate population characteristics within specified distances
from facilities using Geographic Information System (GIS)
technology and display of 1990 Bureau of the Census demographic
data. One system evaluated population demographics at the state
level.
The remaining system, developed by Region IV, identifies
facilities and/or hazardous waste sites that routinely or
accidentally release toxic chemicals and characterizes their
relative environmental toxicity. The toxicity index is combined
with demographics and socioeconomic parameters to identify areas
for further analysis.
107
-------
108
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
See also
• Region III Chemical Indexing System for
the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System;
Part I: Chronic Index (page 209)
109
-------
Environmental Justice Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Acronym;
LagWMton:
Geographic
Coverage:
Peer Revtov* :
Output:
REGION III ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE DEMOGRAPHIC
USER INTERFACE
N/A
area.
Executive order.
User denned.
Wltnln region.
Map and rMMIv* ranking.
POPULATION ESTIMATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
TOOL
PECT
hduMriM facMIe*, monitoring t tot. Me.)
Executive order.
Utar defined.
EPA.
Map and Mini.
REGION It OPM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX
MAPPING APPLICATION
N/A
iNhNXlly, end economic status. (PNot Study).
Executive order.
Currently at stale level.
Currently under review wRtiki region.
Map*.
REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL.
TARGETING SYSTEM
RETA
A tool to Mmtlfy areas with Mgh potential for
human heaWi piubtoiiw, davaloplng
technique* to reduce risk (pollution
prevention, etc.) and develop a database to
mtabHth a proactive environmental justk*
program.
EPA and Mala managers and the pubfc.
Executive order.
UMT defined.
internal and extontaf.
Map and rMMIva ranking.
oiaiemenis 01 peer-review nave ueen suummea ay me personal contact ror eacn sysiem ana compiiea oy tne Ad noc Workgroup. I he WorKgroup encourages
further review of the peer-review process presented for the system of Interest.
110
-------
Environmental Justice Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
YA^ f^BUAl«WkA«t-
9m IWWK^m.
CuvTvnOy UM&
Softww
REGION III ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE DEMOGRAPHIC
USER INTERFACE
1903
On-***
ARC/INFO.
Bureau of Via Cantut Data.
POPULATION ESTIMATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
TOOL
1991
On-gohs.
ARC/INFO.
Bureau Of ttwCantlM data.
REGIONNOPM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX
MAPPING APPLICATION
1993
On~QOin0.
U.S. Bureau oT CMMM STF-H and 3*
dalMata.
ARC/INFO.
REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL
TARGETING SYSTEM
1993
Oiwgomg
ARCflNFO.
BUTMU of ttw Coitm Data.
Ill
-------
Environmental Justice Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
.TmMto
loMtm^f
tysMnwMCK
f toxtofty data
for many
poNutantsi
tornon*
cwdnoQflns)
• ExpMUW
(Conewlralkm
T«m)
-Ownfc*
-ExpoM*
D^M»^^u«
rmafUfjm
-OttMT
REGION III ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE DEMOGRAPHIC
USER INTERFACE
fckwM CMI ha rvwi^^iMt — *"- r^hw iltf •
None. RwuHs can 00 oonvkMo vrttfi oiner
flni^ftec.
None,
fcfc-^,—
rn*w.
Nan*.
POPULATION ESTIMATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
TOOL
None. Remits can be oonMned wNh other
afUMyeec .
kfcwtA
none.
NOIM.
Noiw.
REOIONIIOPM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX
MAPPINO APPLICATION
Nan*. RMuMOTtwcombkwdwMhoftMr
dria«MlyM«.
k^M._
nunv.
kbw^
nmiv.
MmHy mw eiwijrw). .
fllfcwM
npnv.
REGfONtV
ENVIRONMENTAL
TARGETING SYSTEM
fcfcWM D^^ A« <^M« kA «MM«d^k^rii ^JHk ClJt • I
rmw. nmim cvn DV oomnnea wwi ovner
oewi enefyeee.
»^M_—
none.
NUM.
LMM to county IMM! •wtfth.
NIMJI • DM00 on tottf iMdto wlyM of 100
poM» ««i « wtlgMd to *, 22 taw*« wd
12 to Hnd. iMIMh eech ceteQory mbpolnto
•» ndgmd by ««• lypt*.
112
-------
Environmental Justice Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
ToxfcRy
-Cencer
-Non-C*near
1. Aggregme
2. Reproductive.
3. Acute-Short Term
4. Chrome
S. Nwrotox.
•D«l«
1. IRIS
2. HEAST
3. TLVi
4. RTECS
S.HSB
6, Other
Expoeure
- Centnjl Tend.
-Ugh End
• MEI
Ecotoomi
Ctoiuin**
- Technology
• Other
EnvWvfWieflfej eWSflOe
Other
REGION HI ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE DEMOGRAPHIC
USER INTERFACE
Nora.
Nora.
None
UM of Centut dele to Identify erees of
Nora.
POPULATION ESTIMATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
TOOL
Nora.
Nora.
None
«nrln.r,,.,n™Jr ^
UM of eerwus d«to to Menwy nut of
Nona.
REGION II OPM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX
MAPPING APPLICATION
Nora.
Nora.
Nora
UM of cantutdrti to Identify MM of
Nora.
REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL
TARGETING SYSTEM
X
X
X
NoKtatod.
•Jr. 22 point* tor weter, end 12 far fantf.
UM of census dele to Identify erne* of
None.
113
-------
Environmental Justice Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
REGION III ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE DEMOGRAPHIC
USER INTERFACE
POPULATION ESTIMATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
TOOL
REGION II 0PM
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
INDEX MAPPING
APPLICATION
REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL
TARGETING SYSTEM
REGION VI
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK INDEX
QuMMlM
-Cm*
-Non-Cancw
-Exposure
- Ecotogtert
X
X
X
• Env. Juttfc*
-Ottxr
X
X
114
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DEMOGRAPHIC
USER INTERFACE
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
Contact Person: Dominique Lueckenhoff (user), Brian Burch
(developed program), U. S. EPA, 841 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA. 19107. Telephone numbers: (215) 597-6529
(Dominique) and (215) 597-1198 (Brian).
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Environmental Justice Demographic User Interface provides
an estimate of the population around a specific point based on
the address, latitude/longitude coordinates, or a specific
location on a map. The system counts the total population,
children under 7 years of age, number of people below the poverty
level, and age of housing stock.
The User Interface allows the user to specify the number of
miles from -a specific point that are of interest. The user
defined distance can be based on 1/2 to 1 mile increments.
115
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To assist Environmental Justice coordinators in
Region III to determine demographic
characteristics of an area.
Audience: Environmental Justice Coordinators in Region III.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The system is limited to EPA point data. The spatial accuracy
of locations varies. The system does not assess exposure or
toxicity.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxi city: None.
Exposure: Counts the number of sites and
emissions.
Ecological: None.
Economics: Census information is used to identify
number of people below the Poverty
Index.
Environmental
Justice: Census information is used to identify
minority populations, educational
attainment, number of children under age
7 and age of housing stock.
Other (lead): Potential lead exposure sites can be
identified based on population counts of
children under 7 years of age and age of
housing stock.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: Yes X No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: X Yes No
116
-------
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (lead) : _X_ Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Cross-Media
X Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Region III including the states of Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
X Other (specific Statistical Analysis)
Type of Peer Review:
X None
Internal region specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe: )
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: GIS Workstation with Unix operating system.
Software: ARC-Info and Bureau of the Census data.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
This system was developed to meet the needs of the
Environmental Justice Coordinators. It does not replace any
previous systems.
117
-------
REFERENCES
None.
118
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
POPULATION ESTIMATION AND
CHARACTERIZATION TOOL
Acronym: PECT
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Information Resources Management
Contact Person: David, Wolf, Office of Information Resources
Management, U. S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., (Mail Code:
3405 R), Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone Number: (703)
235-5592.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Population Estimation and Characterization Tool (PECT) can
be used for EPA risk-based and environmental justice
applications. The system utilizes CIS technology and ready-to-
use geodemographic data.
The use of this application reduces the costs of obtaining
population estimates compared to manual methods, while greatly
enhancing the quality of results from previously available
automated methods that relied on polygon centroids. The utility
of this application already has been recognized by a number of
Headquarters program offices. For example, the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response currently uses this application
to estimate and characterize populations residing in proximity to
Superfund sites nationwide. PECT also provides the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances information required
for Toxic Release Inventory risk screening of receptor
populations. Finally, the Offices of Research and Development
and Solid Waste are using this application to evaluate the
relative potential health risks to low-income and minority
communities by estimating and characterizing populations in
proximity to Toxic Release Inventory and Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facility sites.
119
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: PECT provides a generic method for estimating and
characterizing populations in circular areas
around locations such as hazardous waste sites,
toxic release facilities, and monitoring sites.
The application allows users to: estimate and
characterize area populations for a given radius
around an individual site; estimate and
characterize populations for a given radius around
several sites; and identify areas of multiple
potential exposure and relate those areas to
individual sites.
Audience: Based on research done previously through the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las
Vegas (EMSL-LV), this application was initially
developed for use by ORD, OERR and OSW. Other
program offices such as the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) and Office of Enforcement (OE),
can be expected to use this or a similar
application.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Concerns pertaining to the Quality Assurance of the spatial
data. Assumptions concerning population distribution based on
the census data. The system does not address toxicity, exposure
or ecological risk.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxi city: None.
Exposure: None.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental An ARC Macro Language (AML) is used in this
Justice: tool. The AML uses the EPA-standard 1990
Block/PL94-171 datasets, which are available
for each county in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, and almost any kind of
120
-------
program site information represented by point
locations, such as the National Priority List
(NPL) or Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data.
Other (specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: Yes _X_ No
Exposure: Yes _X_ No
Ecological: Yes _X_ No
Economics: Yes _X_ No
Environmental _X_ Yes No
Justice:
Other (specify:) Yes _X_ No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
Air Soil X Mult i-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
National in scope.
Output:
Map Relative Ranking
X Other (as described below).
The application generates an INFO database table(s) containing
the unique proximity buffer/population polygon Identification
Numbers and an INFO look-up table that identifies those polygons
that are within the proximity buffer area for one or more sites.
This combination of files enables the user to tabulate the data
in several ways including: by individual site; by total area
within the specified exposure area; and by multiple exposure
areas. Users can perform multiple analyses by combining the data
from runs using different radii distances and releases or
121
-------
monitoring data associated with the site locations. Since this
tool is an "engine" and does not have a viewing capability, users
may display output from this application using Arcview or AML
viewing tools such as the E-MAP.
The application first develops a "proximity" coverage of
concentric circles around the site locations, which is overlaid
on a polygon file such as the 1990 block coverage. The
application is designed to utilize attribute data at the census
block and block group levels, such as those extracted from the
PL94-171 and STF-3A files respectively. The application assumes
an equal distribution of population within census block (or block
group) excluding water areas.
Next, the application performs an intersect operation on the
census polygons and the proximity buffers. Population statistics
are accumulated by summing the total population of all census
polygons that fall within each potential exposure area. Each
resulting polygon's demographic values are calculated based on
the percentage of each census area encompassed by each particular
proximity buffer polygon. For example, if a census block has a
population of 100 and 25% of its area is included in a proximity
buffer, the application allocates 25 persons from that census
block to the total population for that potential exposure area.
The application also allocates values' for other demographic
census data items, such as ethnicity, age, etc. using this
method. After determining the proportionate value of each
demographic item for each census area, the resulting values are
summed for each exposure area.
Type of Peer Review:
X None
Internal region specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
X Other (describe: under development)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: GIS Workstation with Unix operating system (output
may be viewed in PC ARC/VIEW).
Software: ARC/INFO, ARC/VIEW, U.S. Census, TRI, National
Priority List (NPL), and other program specific
information.
122
-------
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Does not replace any previous system.
Based on research done previously through the Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas (EMSL-LV), this
application, which was initially developed for use by ORD, OERR,
OSW. Other program offices such as the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) and Office of Enforcement (OE), can be expected
to use this or a similar application.
REFERENCES
None.
123
-------
124
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
REGION II OFFICE OF POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
INDEX MAPPING APPLICATION
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II
Contact Person: Rudy O'Neal, U. S. EPA, Region II,
Office of Policy and Management, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
N. Y. 10278. Telephone numbers: Rudy O'Neal (212) 264-5681
(for environmental justice data); Bill Hansen and Bob Eckman
(212) 264-9850 for CIS User Interface).
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
At the request of Region II's Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management (ARA), the Office of Policy and
Management's (OPM's) representatives to the Region II
Environmental Justice Workgroup developed a project to:
• identify areas of potential environmental justice concern in
Region II, and
• make this information available to Region II staff and
managers through Region II's Geographic Information System
(GIS) user interface.
The first phase of OPM's project was to develop pilot
environmental justice data layers for the State of New Jersey.
The New Jersey environmental justice coverages have been
completed and incorporated as common data layers in the user
interface. The 1990 Census Standard Tape File 3A (STF-3A)
demographic data and a Human Health Risk Index (HRI) formula
developed by Region VI were used to develop these coverages (see
page 81).
125
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To identify areas of potential Environmental
Justice concern in Region II based on population
density, percent minority population and economic
status.
Audience: Region II staff and managers.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
For this application, it is assumed that every individual in
the community is potentially exposed. If the characteristics of
the community of interest or a specific pollutant enables the
identification of particular portions of the population as the
only areas being significantly exposed, then an exposure ratio
(i.e., population exposed [PE]/population in community of
interest [PC]) can be applied to the analysis.
Population density is used as the exposure factor (Ef) in this
application because it combines (1) total population and, (2) the
spatial component of demographics. These are two environmental
justice factors not directly addressed by the formula. Cultural
differences within ethnic populations (preferences of residence
for commercial or ethnic reasons) are not addressed by the HRI-
Justice formula.
The Degree of Impact (DI) component is a chemical specific
factor which includes cancer and non-cancer potency factors,
assessment of mutagenicity, environmental fate, and
pharmacokinetics. Potential risk to human health can be
evaluated with the environmental justice formula by defining
scoring criteria for Population Exposed (PE) and DI. For this
application, however, the potential health impact of a specific
chemical or group of chemicals is not evaluated. DI is given a
default value of 1.
In the original HRI formula, developed by Region VI (page 81),
the Degree of Vulnerability (DV) component includes demographic
data for ethnicity, economic status, age, pregnancy, life-style
factors, and pre-existing disease. For this analysis, only the
ethnicity (e.g.. percent minority) and economic (e.g.. per capita
income and median household income) subfactors are used in the
environmental justice formula. The minority population is
defined as the census 1990 total of non-white individuals,
126
-------
including Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and individuals
in the census category of other. Demographic data for per capita
income and median household income were used to describe the
economic status component of the formula. The analysis was
performed using both per capita income and median household
income in order to compare them.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity:
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Can be added. Default used.
Can be added. Default used.
None.
Per capita income and median household
income. ,
HRI-Justice Index * (PE/PC x Ef) x (DI x DV)
PE = Population in community exposed
PC = Population in community of interest
Ef = Exposure Factor (Population Density)
DI = Degree of Impact (chemical-specific
factor - assumed = 1 for this limited
application)
DV = Degree of Vulnerability (% minority
population x economic status*)
Per Capita Income and Median Household income
were used as the economic status factors.
Other (Specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity (non-cancer):
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental Justice:
Other (specify):
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
X NO
X NO
X NO
NO
X No
127
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
Air (indoor) Soil Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
As indicated above, a pilot has been completed for New Jersey.
Similar coverages will be developed for New York, Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands after the methodology is approved by
Region II's Environmental Justice Workgroup.
Output:
X Map Relative Ranking
Other (specify [ )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (description: This methodology was developed by
Region VI. Region VI's methodology was peer reviewed
internally.)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: CIS Workstation with Unix operating system.
Software: ARC/INFO version 6.0 on UNIX operating system
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
System is one component of the Region VI ranking system for
comparative risk analysis (page 81).
128
-------
REFERENCES
Documentation being developed.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The three demographic factors used to determine areas of
potential environmental justice concern for the New Jersey pilot
are: (a) population density, (b) ethnicity, and (c) income. The
HRI-Justice method uses a formula to mathematically relate these
factors and rank the census block groups by, their potential for
environmental justice concern. Other factors, such as pollution
source data and ambient concentration data may be incorporated
into the HRI-Justice formula along with the demographic data for
further analysis. The methods and results of the New Jersey
pilot will be reviewed by Region II's Environmental Justice
Workgroup. When Region II's Environmental Justice Workgroup
approves the New Jersey pilot, further work to develop similar
data layers for New York, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
will begin.
The on-line demo uses the Regional CIS interface to display
the environmental justice data layers for New Jersey in
conjunction with other data such as EPA facility information
(e.g., National Priority List (NPL) sites, Permit Compliance
System (PCS) facilities, etc.). The interface is a user-friendly
system that consists of menus and toolboxes running under
ARC/INFO software. These menus allow users to view, manipulate,
and analyze geographic data, and make maps showing the data
without having to learn CIS or ARC/INFO. The interface can be .
used to display data from the Region II CIS libraries and other
user-defined ARC/INFO coverages.
Conclusions and recommendations for interpreting the data are
as follows:
1. Program managers may want to perform further analysis in areas
where:
• the population density is greater than 5,000 persons per
square mile,
• the percent minority population is 1.66 times the state
average or greater, and
• income is less than 1.66 times the state average of $17,535
per capita income, or the state average of $40,551 median
household income in New Jersey.
These conditions result in an environmental justice ranking of
48 to 100 (3x4x4 to 4x5x5). If population density is
129
-------
not considered in the analysis, these conditions will produce
an environmental justice ranking of 16 to 25 (4 x 4 to 5 x 5).
Further analysis to be done for areas in the 48 to 100 range,
or 16 to 25 range may require more detailed evaluation of the
minority population and economic status data to further
distinguish groups below the state average for the economic
status factors.
2. As stated previously, the objective of the pilot environmental
justice analysis was to define areas throughout the state of
New Jersey that, based on population density, minority
population, and income, are of potential environmental justice
concern. Other criteria should be evaluated to further
analyze potential risks to special populations, such as Native
American tribal lands, which tend to have relatively low
population densities, and are high minority, low-income areas.
An alternative to this approach might be to omit the
population density criteria from the analysis and evaluate the
census block groups based on the percent minority and economic
status criteria. The environmental justice ranking analysis
that was done without the population density factor identified
areas in a number of New Jersey Counties (e.g., Salem,
Cumberland, Warren, Hunterdon and Morris) that were not
defined when all three criteria were applied.
3. Further analysis could be done for specific areas (e.g., one
square mile area around a facility) within the areas defined
in this analysis (e.g., areas in the 48 to 100 environmental
justice ranking range). Further analysis may involve
incorporation of pollution source data and ambient
concentration data in the HRI-Justice formula and ranking the
specific areas based on these criteria. The investigator
might also consider other factors together with the HRI-
Justice ranking results. Indeed, data from smaller analyses
will help to more accurately define areas of environmental
justice concern.
130
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
REGION IV ENVIRONMENTAL
TARGETING SYSTEM
Acronym: RETA
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
Contact Person: Cory Berish, Solomon Pollard, U. S. EPA,
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia
30365. Telephone number: (404) 347-7109.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Region IV Environmental Targeting Assessment System (RETA)
locates facilities and/or hazardous waste sites that routinely or
accidentally release toxic chemicals. The system characterizes
their relative environmental, toxicity into an index for the
Southeastern United States. The RETA toxicity index can be
overlain with demographic and socioeconomic parameters, including
total population, minority population, education completed and
poverty status. Locations which have a high potential for human
health problems are pinpointed for future risk screening efforts.
RETA will be used to screen for areas to assess where human
health risk is potentially high from multiple exposures.
Assessment of risk relative to socio-economic and demographic
status can be used to develop a proactive environmental justice
program:
131
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: Intended uses for this system include:
1) Locating areas with high potential for human
health problems.
2) Developing techniques for reducing risk,
including pollution prevention, compliance
and risk communication.
3) Developing the database for establishing a
proactive environmental justice program.
Audience: Region IV Agency staff. State staff from Region
IV. Public including environmental justice
groups.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The system lacks site-specific locations. For many facilities
the system is limited to county data analysis.
Currently the system lacks exposure formulas that will need to
be further developed.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Cancer Slope Factors and concentration data
were utilized where available.
Exposure: None.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental Census data is used to identify minority
Justice: populations, socioeconomic status, education
completed and poverty status.
Other (Index): Index is based on a media-specific total of
100 points with 66 assigned to air; 22 to
water; and 12 to land. Within each category
subpoints are assigned by data types.
132
-------
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes ' No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: X Yes No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air (indoor) X Soil X Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Region IV including the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify ^______ __)
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: academia, CDC, ATSDR, and State
Offices)
Other (describe: ongoing project)
133
-------
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: CIS Workstation with Unix operating system.
Software: Arc/Info version 6.1
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Region IV has been working on the development of RETA for
approximately one year. Formerly, the system was titled PHIRE
but the name was changed during the on-going peer-review process.
REFERENCES
Pollard S. (1994) Region IV Comparative Targeting Analysis.
RETA/GIS Toxicity Ranking and Demographic Analysis. Groundwater
Information Exchange and Technology Support. Volume III, Issues 1
and 2, 3rd Quarter, 1994. (GIETECHS is a biannual publication
organized by the Ground Water Technology Support Unit of the U.S.
EPA, Region IV.)
134
-------
7.0 Hazardous Waste
Two systems were identified to address scoring of hazardous
waste chemicals. The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) was developed
by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. HRS is used
to develop a score of the relative threat associated with the
release or potential release of hazardous substances from an
abandoned hazardous waste site. HRS includes four exposure
pathways: groundwater, surface water, air pathways, and soil
exposure. The HRS evaluates the potential for air to be
contaminated and for contaminated ground water to enter surface
water. The HRS evaluates acute health effects, carcinogenic and
chronic non-carcinogenic effects. The HRS has been extensively
reviewed.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Risk Cost
Analysis Model estimates human exposure and health risk
associated with releases of contaminants from hazardous waste
sites. The methodology is a multimedia model addressing the
transport of a chemical in ground water, surface water, soil
erosion, the atmosphere, and accumulation in food. The risk
associated with the total exposure dose is calculated based on
chemical specific toxicity data.
135
-------
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
See also
• Assessment of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (page 35)
137
-------
Hazard Waste Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Auunyiit
Syttwn
Description:
UgtoMton:
Geographic
Cov0rag6*
fw i\wm* .
Output:
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
MRS
Th» Scoring System used by EPA to assets the raMhra threat
•9iocM0d wRh tho retotM or potontW rvtovM of hwdotM
•rittMiNiMe.
CERCLA *nd SARA.
SRe-«p«eine.
puMc oonvrwnt.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA) - RISK COST ANALYSIS MODEL FOR
MULTI-MEDIA CONTAMINANT FATE.
TRANSPORT AND EXPOSURE MODEL
MMSOH.S
SoTMrting tool for •xpocure •MMcrnent. Provfclss for nw
compcrtooii of dlfforwit wMto •!(••, iwiwdMkNi ACtlvHlM •nd
hflzvd wvluitlon Msttiud on tw ined to provM
-------
Hazardous Waste Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
Year Developed:
Currently Used:
HVCnMTV!
Software.
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (MRS)
MU-1MOS wUh mvteed wraton dBwtoped ki 1990.
YM.
Ptnoral CompuMr (386 or Mgh«0 ««h1 RAM oT mwneiy.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA) - RISK COST ANALYSIS MODEL
FOR MULTI-MEDIA CONTAMINANT FATE
TRANSPORT AND EXPOSURE MODEL
MU-1980S.
Y«t.
PC «Rh 512 KB RAM ml tard Otk ««h 2 MB or ctoraa*.
139
-------
Hazardous Waste Systems Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
* Toxldty
(generaly
•yttofTMtack
toxldtydata
for fnMny
pollutants*
MpecMy
for non-
cwcinoGjWis).
-Expotur*
(Concentration
T«m)
-CtMmimt
-Expocur*
PMIiwiyt
-PopuWton
-Other
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (MRS)
Toxldty •corat UM the cvsltabto (Mta flnd nwy contain nd InQMUon.
VMUiki tpodftod racM of ttw •!(• bM0d on 1090 Census
-------
Hazardous Waste Systems Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
ToxfcRy
-Cancer
-Non-draw
1. Aggregate
2. Reproductive
3. Acute-Short Term
4. Chronic
5. NsufotoxteKy
-Data
1. IRIS
2. HEAST
3. TLVs
4. RTECS
5. HSDB
6. Other
Exposure
- Central Tend.
-Ugh End
• MEI
EootoQted
Economics
* Tochnotooy
-Other
EnvbumiMiKel Justice
Other
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (MRS)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Greater weight Is given to ImpecU on tentlMveenvlranmenU In the
surface water end elr pethweyt.
None.
Seeexponire.
depotXed, vokmie. or surfece tree of the source can be used.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA) - RISK COST ANALYSIS MODEL
FOR MULTI-MEDIA CONTAMINANT FATE
TRANSPORT AND EXPOSURE MODEL
X
X
X
None.
NOfW.
See exposure.
UWM
nonv.
141
-------
Hazardous Waste Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (MRS)
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA) - RISK COST ANALYSIS MODEL
FOR MULTI-MEDIA CONTAMINANT FATE
TRANSPORT AND EXPOSURE MODEL
OlMlMlM
AtMMiiwit:
-C«nc«r
-Non-C*ncar
• Exposure
-Eeotogtetf
- Economics
- Em. Juste*
-Other
X
X
X
X
142
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Acronym: HRS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Contact Person: Bob Meyers, U. S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation
Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Telephone Number: (703) 603-8851. ^^^^
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is the scoring system EPA uses
to assess the relative threat associated with the release or
potential release of hazardous substances from a waste site. The
HRS score is the primary criterion EPA uses to determine whether
a site should be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
NPL identifies sites that warrant further investigation to
determine if they pose risks to public health or the environment.
Sites on the NPL are eligible for long-term "remedial action"
financed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
The HRS uses data that can be collected relatively quickly and
inexpensively, thus allowing most Superfund resources to be
directed to remedial actions at sites on the NPL.
The original HRS was developed in the mid 1980s. The revised
HRS was developed in 1990. This report summarizes the revised
HRS.
143
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use:
Audience:
The scoring system used by EPA to assess the
relative threat associated with the release or
potential release of hazardous substances from a
waste site.
EPA managers and scientists, state and local
governments, and the public.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Available site-specific data for the site.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity:
Exposure:
Three measures of toxicity are used in a
tiered approach that uses acute data
only when the other data are not
available. The measures are: cancer
risks based on Cancer Potency Factors
(CPF) and Qualitative Weight-of-
Evidence.
Non-cancer effects of chronic exposure
are based on verified Reference Doses,
the estimated amount of a substance to
which the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) can be exposed on a
daily basis over a lifetime without an
appreciable risk of harmful non-cancer
effects.
Acute toxicity based on the LDSO or LC50
(lethal dose (LD) or lethal
concentration (LC) at which 50% of
experimental animals exposed die.
The revised HRS gives greater weight to
actual exposures.
For the groundwater, surface water, and
air pathways factors are added
reflecting risks to the nearest exposed
individual -- that is the person who is
closest to the site and so is expected
to be exposed to the highest
concentration of contaminants.
144
-------
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Other (Hazardous
Waste Quantity):
Greater weight is given to people whose
drinking water is contaminated and for
the soil exposure pathways (people
living, working or going to school on
contaminated soil). The evaluation of
the exposed target populations for both
the groundwater and surface water
pathways includes a weighing factor
based on the Federal primary drinking
water standards, or some other health-
based benchmark if no standard exists.
Greater weight is given to the surface
water pathways to actual contamination
of the aquatic human food chain.
Where no actual exposure has been
documented, the people potentially
exposed are distance weighted in the
ground water and air pathways and
dilution weighted in the surface water
pathway. A comprehensive resources
factor that considers recreational and
other uses of the ground water, surface
water, and air pathways is also
included.
The revised HRS gives greater weight
than the original HRS to impacts on
sensitive environments in the surface
water and air pathways. Sensitive
environments are also considered in the
soil exposure pathway. The revised HRS
expands significantly the types of
sensitive environments evaluated at a
site.
None.
Populations within 3 to 4 miles of the
site are characterized.
The revised HRS uses a tiered approach
to determine the hazardous waste
quantity factor. Hazardous constituent
concentration data, mass of waste as
deposited, volume, or surface area of
the source can be used. This approach
provides the flexibility to use the best
available site-specific data.
145
-------
Score: The scoring system for each pathway is
based on a number of individual factors
grouped into three factor categories:
(1) likelihood of release; (2) waste
characteristics; and (3) targets. The
HRS site score, which ranges from 0 to
100, is obtained by combining the four
pathway scores using a root-mean-square
equation.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (specify) : X Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Site-specific score developed.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking Score.
Other (specify )
146
-------
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific '
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: published in the Federal Register
for public comment).
Other (describe: ).
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Personal Computer - 386 or higher with 1 RAM of
memory.
Software: HRS software.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
The initial system was developed in the mid-1980's with a
revised system developed in 1990.
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Hazardous
Ranking System - Guidance Manual. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, B.C. 20460. (November 1992). NTIS
Publication Number PB-92-963377.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990). The Revised
Hazard Ranking System: Background Information. Quick
Reference Fact Sheet. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
20460. EPA Publication No. 9320.7-03FS. (November 1990).
147
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The HRS includes four exposure pathways: ground water,
surface water, air pathways, and soil exposure. The HRS
evaluates the potential for air to be contaminated and for
contaminated ground water to enter surface water. The HRS
evaluates acute health effects, carcinogenic, and chronic
noncarcinogenic effects.
The revised HRS allows assignment of a higher score when
people are actually exposed to contamination than when they are
potentially exposed. In addition, higher scores are also
assigned to potentially exposed people and sensitive environments
closest to a site, with scores decreasing as distance from a site
increases.
Ecological effects are evaluated including sensitive
environments (i.e., wetlands and endangered species) and
environments designated as sensitive by various federal and state
agencies.
The HRS score is calculated as shown below:
S2^ + S2^ + S\ + S2a
HRS =
where gw = groundwater, sw » surface water, s = soil, and a =
air.
148
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT (RCRA) - RISK COST ANALYSIS MODEL
FOR MULTI-MEDIA CONTAMINANT FATE,
TRANSPORT AND EXPOSURE MODEL
Acronym: MMSOILS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Communications, Analysis and Budget Division
Contact Person: Linda Martin, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Communications, Analysis and Budget Division, Regulatory
Analysis Branch, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-0062.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) risk-cost
analysis model for multimedia contaminant fate, transport and
exposure model (MMSOILS) estimates human exposure and health risk
associated with releases of contamination from hazardous waste
sites. The methodology is a multimedia model addressing the
transport of a chemical in ground water, surface water, soil
erosion, the atmosphere, and accumulation in food. The human
exposure pathways considered in the methodology include: soil
ingestion, air inhalation of volatiles and particulates, dermal
contact, ingestion of drinking water, consumption of fish,
consumption of plants grown on contaminated soil, and consumption
of animals grazing on contaminated pastures. For multimedia
exposure, the methodology provides estimates of human exposure
through individual pathways and combined exposure through all
pathways considered. The risk associated with the total exposed
dose is calculated based on chemical specific toxicity data.
149
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: The methodology is intended for use as ,a screening
tool. It is critical that the results are
interpreted in the appropriate framewdrk. The
intended use of the exposure assessment tool is
for screening and relative comparison of different
waste sites, remediation activities, and hazard
evaluation. The methodology can be used to
provide an estimation of health risks for a
specific site.
Audience: The system is meant for use by non-specialists.
It was first developed for RCRA but is constructed
to go beyond RCRA to other areas such as CERCLA.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The algorithms used to represent the different environmental
transport mechanisms are simple models that do not represent the
detailed heterogeneity and complex environmental influences
affecting the fate and transport of chemicals. The simple models
are useful within the screening framework to identify ranges of
probable outcomes based on expected ranges of the important input
parameters.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Chemical specific toxicity data used.
Exposure: Pathways of transport of a chemical in ground
water, surface water, soil erosion, the
atmosphere, and accumulation in food. Soil
ingestion, air inhalation of volatiles and
particulates, dermal contact, ingestion of
drinking water, consumption of fish,
consumption of plants grown on contaminated
soil, and consumption of animals grazing on
contaminated pasture.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Envi ronment a1
Justice: See Exposure.
Other (specify): None.
150
-------
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes _X_ No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Site specific.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe):
Other (describe: )
151
-------
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: IBM compatible PC. 512 KB Random Access Memory
(RAM). Hard disk with 2 MB of storage available,
DOS 3.x or higher.
Software: MMSOILS computer program.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
f
This model was developed by combining a multimedia exposure
and risk estimation methodology for application to sites where
release of toxic chemicals has occurred.
REFERENCES
None.
152
-------
8.0 Lead
A total of five systems were identified to evaluate potential
exposure to lead in the environment. The identified systems were
developed using data from the Bureau of the Census and Geographic
Information Systems (CIS) technology. Similarities .among the
systems include:
• Population demographics i.e., children 7 years of age and
under, age of housing, poverty, etc. are used to identify
areas of potential concern based on the 1990 'Census data. Two
systems expanded the database described previously to include
traffic data and industrial facility information.
• Population areas analyzed range from block group to county
level.
• Environmental exposure data was not readily available. Only
three systems utilized this information as part of the
analysis. The Region V system used the Agency's Biokinetic
Uptake model (UBK) version 0.5 to evaluate elevated blood lead
levels to determine whether the CDC action level of 10
micrograms/deciliter was exceeded.
• Four of the systems incorporate comparisons of predicted areas
of concern based on predicted blood lead data to actual blood
lead data to assess the accuracy of the system in identifying
potential risk areas.
Many of the systems are currently in the developmental stage.
It is anticipated that changes will be made in these systems as
further analysis is completed.
153
-------
154
-------
LEAD SYSTEMS MATRIX
155
-------
Lead Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Acronym:
System
Dmcriplton:
Primary Audtonca:
LagMatbn:
Coverage:
Output
NJDEP SYSTEM TO ASSESS
LEAD EXPOSURE
USING CIS
TECHNOLOGY
N/A
PM protect to evaluate GIS data layer*
utarul In htanMylng cannunMM In 3
NBW Jersey counties et potent let risk
for exposure lo toed.
Stele rneneQors end puMc.
TM*X.
Steto, county or block Qroup.
fti Jii]»|iart |W — •— —- ——•——-* BMBMtBBl
ruonnoa n pver^wwva ^junww.
Map*
Statements oil peer-review have been submitted by tt
further review of the peer-review process presented f
NORTH CAROLINA GIS
MODELING OF LEAD
POISONING RISK
. FACTORS
N/A
A pRot study In North CeroNne to
risk for exposure to Ised.
»._.
TMaX.
Stata, county or Nock group.
tntamal ftata and NIEHS.
Map*.
OPPTS GEOGRAPHIC
LEAD TARGETING
SYSTEM
N/A
eMftefnent, educsnon end outresch
besed on toed exposure.
EPA end outside.
TTttsX.
Stete, county or block proup.
Map* and *tatWlcalanaVtl*.
le personal contact and complied by the Ad Hoc Workgroup. The Wori
or the system of Interest
REGION V LEAD
EDUCATION AND
ABATEMENT PROGRAM
(LEAP)
LEAP
Raghm V pM itudy to avakiata a
etoveted blood leed levels In different
dtla*.
EPA and data fnanagani and tha
pubfc.
TMaX.
Stata( county or btock group.
Ragton V.
Map*, output from UBK modal, and
atatMlcal analy*!*.
kgroup encourages
REGION IX GIS
MULTI-MEDIA PILOT
PROJECT
MM
A fnuttMnedle plot project to IdentVy
erees et potenUst nsK front exposure
to lead utkig GIS tachnotogy.
EPA menepers end the public.
TMaX.
Stele, county or Mock Qroup.
On-ejohiQ project.
Map*.
156
-------
Lead Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
Yeer Developed:
Currently UM*
ft^M&aMOM*
TIMruWW.
Sofhmre:
NJDEP SYSTEM TO ASSESS
LEAD EXPOSURE
USING GIS
TECHNOLOGY
1001
On-going.
GIS WoftotflHon wWi Unix Operating
Syetenv
DOT Date
Arc/Info
D-BetelM*
ETAKData
dataieti.
NORTH CAROLINA
GIS MODELING OF LEAD
POISONING RISK
FACTORS
1092
On-going.
GIS VWxIcetatlon vMi Unix Operating
System.
Are/Info
D4a*alll+
Buraau of Cwnut STF-1a and 3*
(MiMt*.
OWI8 GEOGRAPHIC
LEAD TARGETING
SYSTEM
1002
On-going.
Gte WtortotflHon vrith Unix Operating
Syvtwn.
Areflnfb
D-BM«III+
BUTMU of Ofnsu* STF-1* Mid 3a
d*t*Mtt.
REGION V LEAD
EDUCATION AND
ABATEMENT PROGRAM
(LEAP)
10K
On-going.
GIS WMnMtonwim Unbt Operating
Systoni.
Arc/fnfo
0-B««III+
Bantu of CentM STF-1» end 3*
drtimtt.
UBK Model.
REGION IX
GIS MULTI-MEDIA
PILOT PROJECT
1003
On-going.
DOS iMMd computer with 2 MB RAM.
Arcfififo
OBMetlU
BUFMU of Constn STF-la and 3a
dit>nt>.
UBK Model
157
-------
Lead Systems Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
-To*k*y
(gananfty
•yctointtack
toxldty dflto
fbrnorv
-Expewr*
T«m)
- Chemtcete
-Exposure
- PopuMnon
-OBw
NJDEP SYSTEM TO ASSESS
LEAD EXPOSURE
USING GIS TECHNOLOGY
LMtodtolMd.
NOM.
UmRod to leed.
NOM.
CMdrwi ureter 7.
exposure assumptions (I.e.. ege of
household, Income, etc.).
NORTH CAROLINA GIS
MODELING OF LEAD
POISONING RISK
FACTORS
LMtodtolMd.
NOM.
LMtodtolMd.
ftlnna
mw.
CliMiwi undsr 6.
•xposurB MttMnplloM.
OPPTS GEOGRAPHIC
LEAD TARGETING
SYSTEM
LMtodtolMd.
NOM.
LMtodtolMd. '
NOM.
CMWren under 7.
_
REGION V- LEAP
LMtodtolMd.
Mod^^o^on^UBK-nod-.
LMtodtolMd.
ChMran undw 7.
DmwgmjMu uMd M mnoMto tor
REGION IX GIS
MULTI-MEDIA PILOT
PROJECT
LJfflRed to leed.
NOM.
LMtodtolMd.
IhbM^
none.
OMUrwt from 0-12.
D*nograprilct UMd M tumgito for
158
-------
Lead Systems Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
TacfcKy
-Non-dmar
1. Aggregate
2. RaproducHv*
3. Acute-Short Term
4. Chronic
S. Nauratax.
-Data
1 IRIS
2.HEAST
3TLV«
4. RTECS
S.HSDB
6. Other
Expoeure
- Central Tend.
-High End
-ME)
Eeotogfc*
Eoooomlct
- Technolo0y
-Other
Other
NJDEP SYSTEM TO ASSESS
LEAD EXPOSURE
USING CIS TECHNOLOGY
Blood (Md level OHO
X
None. -
None.
fc^-,-1-
nono.
NORTH CAROLINA GIS
MODELING Of LEAD
POISONING RISK
FACTORS
BtoodlMdtoMloMO
X
Nona.
*»
nono.
WMghhg of (tamographle
OPPTS GEOGRAPHIC
LEAD TARGETING
SYSTEM
BloedlMdlMrtadO
X
None.
Anttdpito bowing <«• •* otfwr
wtabtet.
tTntMi^fcMi ^i^Mala hM-fcMlMl
None.
REGION V- LEAP
BtoodlMdtaMloMO
X
fc^i,,-
Non0.
titnnm
nonv.
FtfMM^I^Mi wutumli birkuflMt
None.
REGION IX GIS
MULTI-MEDIA PILOT
PROJECT
Woodte«dl«vrtof 10
mlcnMirami/dsciltAr UMd
X
NOM.
fifw^^M^MmiA* rftfA
^ . .. ^ •-— «-b«*Mtoit
None.
159
-------
Lead Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
NJDEP SYSTEM TO ASSESS
LEAD EXPOSURE
USING CIS TECHNOLOGY
NORTH CAROLINA OIS
MODELING OF LEAD
POISONING RISK
FACTORS
OPPTS GEOGRAPHIC
LEAD TARGETING
SYSTEM
REGION V-LEAP
REGION IX GIS
MULTI-MEDIA PILOT
PROJECT
QuaRMIv*
-Omcw
-NwvCancer
-Exposure
-Ecological
• Economics
- Env. Justice
-OttMr
X
X
160
-------
LEAD
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SYSTEM TO ASSESS
LEAD EXPOSURE USING CIS TECHNOLOGY
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Science and Research
Contact Person: William Guthe, Division of Science and
Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
Telephone number: (609)633-0783
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The goal of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP's) assessment of lead exposure using Geographic
Information System (CIS) technology is to identify county areas
within Newark, East Orange and Irvington, New Jersey where there
may be greater environmental exposure to lead. The methodology
utilizes data from the Bureau of the Census. In addition, data
provided by the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) provide
reported patterns of elevated blood lead data in the study area.
Comparisons of these spatial patterns will assist NJDEP in its
soil sampling activities and lead exposure research, will provide
information for public education, and will provide valuable
information on a section of the study area where further
screening and public education may be needed.
161
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: A pilot study to evaluate GIS data layers
necessary to identify areas within three
communities in New Jersey where there may be
greater environmental exposure to lead.
Audience: NJDEP staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Limitations associated with available data sets (i.e., data on
blood lead levels, Census data, Toxic Release Inventory,
transportation, road networks, etc.).
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Lead only defined endpoint.
Exposure: Blood lead level data for children 7 years of
age and under.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental See exposure.
Justice:
Other (specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: ' Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (population): X Yes No
162
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil _X_ Multi-Media
Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
X Transportation
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, ,Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Pilot study in three New Jersey counties. Can be expanded to
other parts of the state depending on available data.
Output:
X Map Relative Ranking
Other (specify: )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
X Other (describe: published in journal: Environmental
Research).
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Geographic Information System running on a Unix
platform.
Software: GIS software. 1990 Census Data from the STF-3A
file, TRI data and blood lead data.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
On-going project.
163
-------
REFERENCES
Guthe, W. G., Tucker, R. K., Murphy, E. A., England, R.,
Stevenson, E., and Luckhardt, J. C. (1992). Reassessment of
lead exposure in New Jersey using GIS technology.
Environmental Research 59; 318-325.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
NJDEP is addressing the problem of lead exposure in a variety
of ways: through extensive testing of dust, soil, and water; by
reviewing databases on industrial use of lead, traffic patterns,
housing stock, and other factors; and through close cooperation
with other state agencies regarding blood screening, occupational
exposure, residence patterns, and other parameters. All of these
data sources have a common characteristic, each can be located in
space as a point, line or area. NJDEP's GIS can integrate these
data to identify significant correlations, anomalies, or "hot
spots" and geographic areas requiring further field work,
analysis, or education outreach.
The first step in the analysis involves the entry of the
census tract boundaries, generated using Bureau of the Census
TIGER/Line files. These files show roads, hydrography and other
linear features for the geographic area of interest. Because the
spatial accuracy of the TIGER fields is relatively poor, the
census tract boundaries were corrected to match ETAK databases
which have more accurate spatial locations.
Next, blood lead screening records for Essex County supplied
by NJDOH were entered into the system. These records contain
screening and address information that can be entered into the
GIS and assigned to a specific location using the GIS
Addressmatch command. Individuals with elevated blood lead
levels were assigned to a specific census tract.
The GIS is also used to access NJDEP databases with location
information on industrial sites emitting lead and hazardous waste
sites contaminated with lead within the study area. Data from
the 1987 Toxic Release Inventory were used to identify the
industrial sites; NJDEP's 1989 "Site Status Report" served as the
source for the hazardous waste site locations. These points have
associated information regarding the name of the facility, the
amount of lead released, the medium into which the lead was
released and other data.
Traffic volume estimates generated by the New Jersey
Department of Transportation (NJDOT) were used to identify roads
with high traffic volumes. NJDOT reports vehicle miles traveled
by road classification for each municipality, and ETAK file codes
arcs by road classification. Combining these two data elements
164
-------
allows vehicle miles traveled by road classification to be shown
cartographically. Data from EPA's calculated lead emission
factors can then be used to estimate lead emissions for given
speeds and vehicle types.
Spatial data on the various lead sources, populations at risk,
and known patterns of high blood lead were overlaid and compared.
The resulting maps show census tracts with above average
frequencies of children with elevated blood lead levels, overlaid
by lead sources and sensitive populations in the area.
165
-------
-------
LEAD
NORTH CAROLINA CIS MODELLING
OF LEAD POISONING RISK FACTORS
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Contact Person: Carol Hanchette, CIS Manager, State
Center for Health and Environmental Statistics, Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27626. Telephone number: (919) 715-4567.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The goal of the North Carolina Geographic Information System
(CIS) modelling of lead poisoning risk factors is to identify
geographic areas at potential risk of elevated blood lead levels.
A population cohort study of 238,275 children aged 0 to 4 were
universally screened during the first year of mandatory universal
screening program in Massachusetts. The following demographic
and socioeconomic variables associated with lead poisoning were
identified based on this data: per capita income, percent of
housing built before 1950, percent of African-American
population, and poverty index composed of percent of female-
headed households with children under 18 years of age, percent of
homes owner-occupied, and percent of children under 5 years of
age living in poverty.
These variables are available from the 1990 census and used in
North Carolina analysis. In addition, percent of population on
public assistance and median house value are also available and
used.
The modelling approach uses geographic suitability analysis
to weight the severity of risk factors and overlay them to
produce a final map portraying lead poisoning risk "potential".
167
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: A pilot study to identify geographic areas with
lead poisoning risks.
Audience: North Carolina state staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Limitations associated with available data sets (i.e., Census
data, blood lead levels, and spatial scale).
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Blood lead levels as biological indicator.
Exposure: Blood lead data used as a marker.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental Various demographic parameters used.
Justice:
Other (specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (population): X Yes No
168
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
Air Soil Mult i-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Counties in North Carolina.
Output:
X Map Relative Ranking
Other (specify: )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe: ongoing project supported with funding
from the National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences).
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Geographic Information System running on a Unix
platform.
Software: GIS software. 1990 Census Data from the STF-3A
file and blood lead data.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
On-going project.
169
-------
REFERENCES
Hanchette, C. (1993). CIS modelling of lead poisoning risk
factors. National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences
proj ect report.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The analysis was done using both the county and the census
block group as the geographic unit of analysis. The first st6p
in geographic suitability analysis is to produce a series of
primary maps, each one consisting of one variable. Attributes
from each primary map are scaled to produce a series of derived
maps. Overlay analysis, using the derived maps, is then used to
produce a final map where the values reflect the sum of the
derived maps and are classified into meaningful categories.
Quartile distributions for each variable, using all North
Carolina counties, or block groups, were used to produce the
derived maps and are classified into meaningful categories i.e.,
assigning each risk factor a value of 1 to 4 where 1 = low risk
and 4 = high risk. The risk potential maps produced in the
analysis indicate the relative risk,' using North Carolina as a
standard.
The system was tested using county level data for eastern
North Carolina which shows up as an area with a high number of
risk factors. This corresponds well with the preliminary
analysis of the first year of screening data collected since the
implementation of direct lead testing by North Carolina's state
laboratory. At the block group level two of three counties
tested showed correspondence between the patterns predicted by
the model and the blood lead levels. Further investigation of a
rural county is being carried out based on an individual GIS tax
parcel database.
A future goal of the project is to evaluate and calibrate the
modeling results though the use of a representative sample of
blood lead screening data, possibly stratified geographically by
low, medium and high risks.
170
-------
LEAD
OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND
TOXICS GEOGRAPHIC LEAD TARGETING
SYSTEM
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Contact Person: Loren Hall, U. S. EPA, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 401 M Street, S.W., TS-799,
Washington, B.C. 20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-3931.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, ecqnomics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Geographic Lead
Targeting System uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to
integrate data on various sources, exposure pathways and
receptors, and to develop a model targeting system that will be
used by EPA to assist in identifying national and regional
priority geographic areas. This is an ongoing project with
estimated completion in FY'94. The system is designed to
accommodate additional data which may be available only at a
local level, so that it can be adapted to state and local needs.
In the process, the project will develop consistent versions of
major datasets, such as the 1990 Census data, in GIS format. The
project will rely on extensive information exchange and
coordination with other federal, state and local agencies. The
methods created should allow areas to be identified as priorities
for additional blood screening, education and outreach, and
possibly expanded abatement activities.
171
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: A targeting tool to identify areas for abatement,
education and outreach for lead exposure.
Audience: EPA, other federal agencies, state and local
agencies which manage lead abatement, education
and outreach programs.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Will depend on the final methodology developed.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Evaluated lead only.
Exposure: Blood lead levels are used as a marker.
Ecological: None.
Economics: Anticipate using housing data and other
surrogate variables of exposure to lead.
Environmental Under development.
Justice:
Other (specify): Population based on Bureau of the Census
tract data.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
*
Economics: X Yes No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (population): X Yes No
172
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Nation-wide. Anticipate methodology can be applied to smaller
geographic areas (i.e., regions, states, and local communities).
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify: )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
X Other (describe: system under development anticipate
peer-review as the project continues.)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Geographic Information System running on a Unix
platform.
Software: CIS software. 1990 Census Data from the STF-3A
file. Data from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development on housing stock.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
On-going project.
173
-------
REFERENCES
Vigyan, Inc. (1993). OPPT Geographic Lead Targeting System
Data Dictionary (DRAFT). Prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-
DI-0007. March 26, 1993.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
EPA data on current and historical industrial and automobile
sources of lead, and a few sets of environmental and human
monitoring data, are also being incorporated. A simplified
scoring model is expected to be developed, based on studies
indicating which factors or surrogate exposure variables are best
correlated with elevated blood lead levels.
The system combines data scales derived from the Bureau of the
Census using total population, children under age 7, total
occupied housing units and total housing units estimated to
contain lead-based paint. The homes with lead-based paint were
identified based on data supplied by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. A pilot study is currently being carried
out in Baltimore, Maryland and the results will be compared to
actual blood lead data from the lead registry in Baltimore.
174
-------
LEAD
REGION V LEAD EDUCATION AND
ABATEMENT PROGRAM (LEAP)
Acronym: LEAP
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Environmental Services Division
Contact Person: William H. Sanders, Director, Environmental
Services Division, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone Number:
(312) 353-3808.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Region V Lead Education and Abatement Program (LEAP) is a
comparative risk screening methodology for ranking geographic
areas as to potential lead toxicity. The program is divided into
three phases: Phase I involves estimating the relative blood lead
levels in childhood populations and comparing geographic areas to
ascertain the level of severity; Phase II involves sampling in a
small number of communities, as well as public outreach and
education on the dangers of environmental exposure to lead; and
Phase III will involve the remediation of environmental sources
of lead (e.g., soil and dust) in one or two communities.
The LEAP algorithm estimates the probability distribution of
blood-lead levels (greater than the CDC level of 10
micrograms/deciliter) in populations of children under 7 years of
age. LEAP was applied in Region V (Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana) using Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology to map the areas of concern,
Bureau of the Census data, and the EPA Uptake Biokinetic Lead
Model version 0.5 (UBK). The project estimated the number of
children 7 years of age or younger, African American, and
Hispanic children in major cities within Region V which may have
blood lead levels exceeding 10 micrograms/deciliter.
175
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To provide a screening tool to compare potentials
for elevated blood lead levels in different
cities. The tool is designed to specifically
locate areas within a city that may be expected to
have higher rates of lead exposed children than
other areas. The intent of the population
analysis is to use the relative number of children
to set priorities for intervention efforts within
a city or region.
The methodology is a screening tool and is not
designed to predict the actual number of children
at risk.
Audience: Region V Agency staff (toxicologists and
managers).
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The methodology is a screening tool and is not designed to
predict the actual number of children at risk.
Availability of data needed to support calculations by the UBK
model. Availability of soil ingestion exposure data.
Limitations of data from the Bureau of the Census including
Census tract size, rural vs. city, aging of the population since
the original Census, and potential under-reporting in different
geographic areas.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Analysis limited to lead.
Exposure: Blood lead data used as a marker.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental Different ethnic and racial groups
Justice: were analyzed during the project.
Other (specify): Population based on Bureau of the Census
tract and community area (aggregation of
176
-------
census tracts) levels for each city. Blood
lead data was used in the initial
verification of the methodology.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice: '
Other (population): X Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
Surface Water Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.) :
Communities within Region V including the states of Ohio,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana.
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify: )
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe:)
177
-------
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
*
Hardware: Geographic Information System running on a Unix
platform.
Software: UBK model. CIS software. 1990 Census Data from
the STF-3A file.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Region V is implementing this project over a three year
period. It is both a regional initiative and a component of the
national Agency Lead Strategy. The study includes 83 cities
located in 60 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). The
objective of the study is to estimate the probability
distribution of blood-lead levels in childhood populations and
compare geographic areas. For each metropolitan Statistical
Central City area, environmental data was obtained for the major
sources/routes of exposure, including point source air
facilities, municipal waste combustors as a special case
category, ambient air quality measurements, drinking water
supplies, and operating and abandoned hazardous waste sites.
Where available, the study used actual ambient concentration
data. Default values were established for each environmental
media where actual measurements had not been taken. Air
concentrations associated with major air sources were derived
from modeling source emissions.
Demographic information was obtained from a GIS application.
Information was provided at the census tract or community area
(aggregation of census tract levels for each city). In general,
a census tract has a population of about 4,000 people.
Environmental data (i.e., media concentrations) associated with
each tract were provided in order to calculate blood-lead level
distributions in the affected populations.
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Project LEAP -
Phase I. Spatial and numerical dimensions of young minority
children exposed to low-level environmental sources of lead.
Summary Report. U. S. EPA, Environmental Services Division,
Region V, Chicago, Illinois. EPA 905-R-92-002. (November 7,
1992).
178
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Project LEAP -
Phase I. Spatial and numerical dimensions of young minority
children exposed to low-level environmental sources of lead.
Geographic Information Systems Appendix. U. S. EPA,
Environmental Services Division, Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
EPA 905-R-92-002. (November 7, 1992).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Project LEAP -
Phase I. Spatial and numerical dimensions of young minority
children exposed to low-level environmental sources of lead.
Geographic Information Systems Appendix A through T. U. S.
EPA, Environmental Services Division, Region V, Chicago,
Illinois. EPA 905-R-92-002. (November 7, 1992). %
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The demographic data used in the study was at the census tract
and community area (aggregation of census tracts) levels for each
city. In general, a census tract has a population of about 4,000
people. Environmental data (air, drinking water, soil and dust
concentrations) associated with each tract were obtained in order
to calculate blood-lead level distributions in the affected
populations.
Based on the environmental concentrations for each census
tract/community area, the lead Uptake Biokinetic Model was run to
calculate an expected percent exceedance for each area. The
percentage, applied against the population data for the tract,
provided an estimate of the number of children under 7 years of
age at risk of lead exposure. Further aggregations allowed for a
city total, as well as a numerical ranking of cities.
The methodology was tested in the Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Minnesota area. Both areas had available measured blood-lead
levels, along with pertinent demographic information. Two
statistical procedures were performed. A simple correlation
analysis was conducted to ascertain whether modeled blood-lead
levels, based primarily upon the environmental data for the area,
were associated with actual measured blood-lead levels. An
association would indicate the variability of the approach in
comparing cities. The statistical correlation analysis indicated
a correlation coefficient of 0.3. The results were only
statistically significant, however, at the 0.10 level.
The second statistical procedure was conducted to further
analyze the contribution of environmental pathways of exposure to
elevations in blood-lead levels and, in particular, to ascertain
whether mobile sources (i.e., proximity to a major transportation
corridor) could account for a portion of the elevation in blood-
lead levels. No association was found.
179
-------
The authors reported that the lead UBK model was unable to .
account for ethnicity and socioeconomic status resulting in a
potential underestimate of the at-risk population. Cities with
the greatest estimated number of children with elevated blood
lead levels were Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Cleveland.
Soil and dust contamination were the predominate sources of lead
exposure.
It is important to note that this methodology is a screening
tool. It is not a methodology to predict the actual number of
children at risk.
180
-------
LEAD
REGION IX GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEM (CIS)
MULTI-MEDIA PILOT PROJECT
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX
Contact Person: Frank Gardner, U. S. EPA, Region IX,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105. Telephone number: (415)
744-2039.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Region IX Geographic Information System (GIS) Multi-media
pilot project is designed to use geographic mapping in a multi-
media pilot study to target areas within Region IX that have a
human population at potential risk from exposure to environmental
lead contamination. Particular emphasis will be placed on
childhood exposure. These areas will be identified for further
investigation, and education, prevention, and abatement efforts.
In this pilot study, a series of coverages will be mapped to
identify the geographic interplay between lead-contaminated media
and ,the presence of human receptors. The coverages will be
divided into two groups, "sources" and "receptors". The source
coverages will represent lead contamination in soil, air, and
water, media which contribute to the ingestion and inhalation
routes of exposure to humans. The receptor coverages will
include all human populations, but with a particular focus on
children. Household economic data and ethnicity data will also
be included to address environmental justice issues.
181
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: A pilot study to take a multi-media approach in
the use of geographic targeting to identify
specific areas within Region IX that have a
population at potential risk from exposure to
environmental lead contamination.
Audience: Region IX staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Qualitative analysis. Limitations of available datasets
(i.e., environmental data, Bureau of the Census data, etc.).
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Limited to lead.
Exposure: None.
Ecological: None.
Economics: Socioeconomic data.
Environmental Evaluating different ethnic communities
Justice:
Other (specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: X Yes No
Environmental X Yes No
Justice:
Other (population): X Yes No
182
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil X Multi-Media
Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
Region IX.
Output:
X Map Relative Ranking
Other (specify: )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
X Other (describe: under development)
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Geographic Information System running on a Unix
platform.
Software: GIS software. 1990 Census Data from the STF-3A
file.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
On-going project.
183
-------
REFERENCES
None.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Sources include:
Lead contaminated CERCLA, RCRA and state sites,
Major traffic routes,
Areas with older homes (indicative of potential for paint
containing lead),
Ambient lead levels in air,
Air point sources of lead,
Drinking water wells, and
Areas with exceedances of the lead action level in drinking
water distribution systems.
Receptors include:
• Residential areas and population density,
• Residential areas with children of ages 0 to 5 and 6 to 12
years,
• Ethnicity data, and
• Household economic data.
These coverages will be superimposed and qualitatively
evaluated by the Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to
identify potential lead "hot spots" within the region. This
represents the first phase in the Regional Lead Strategy. The
proposed second phase will consist of calibration and
verification of the qualitative GIS targeting methodology.
Further analyses will include gathering information on lead
levels in soils and/or blood lead levels in the residential "hot
spot" areas. This should be coupled with community education
efforts on lead poisoning prevention. The proposed third phase
will consist of developing remedial alternatives to address the
sources of lead contamination.
184
-------
9.0 Pollution Prevention
Only one screening system was identified for pollution
prevention targeting. The system was developed by the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. The scoring system
is based on chemical specific toxicity, and release/production
ratios. The system evaluates cancer and non-cancer health
effects and also includes a section for ecological toxicity. The
raw scores for the four risk groups are added together and
multiplied by the release/production ratio to derive a composite
score for each chemical.
185
-------
186
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SCREENING METHODOLOGY FOR POLLUTION
PREVENTION TARGETING
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Contact Person: U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20460.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Screening Methodology for Pollution Prevention Targeting
is used for targeting chemicals for pollution prevention. The
method is based on a three-step scoring system, based on chemical
specific toxicity and release/production ratios.
Human health factors considered in the scoring include cancer
classification, oncogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive and
developmental and chronic toxicity. The method also includes
ecological toxicity. Raw scores for all four risk groups are
added together and multiplied by the release/production ratio to
derive a composite score for each individual chemical.
187
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To identify chemicals to target for pollution
prevention efforts.
Audience: EPA pollution prevention program staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Equal weights given to all A to B2 carcinogens irrespective of
potency. Non-cancer and ecological toxicity qualities typically
are given a 2/3 value each relative to carcinogenicity, while
reproductive and development and neurotoxicity are valued at 1/3.
Exposure levels are crudely estimated by the ratio of
release/production irrespective of absolute release values.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: weighing of 3 for carcinogenicity;
2 for non-cancer effects; 1 for reproductive/
developmental/neurotoxicity concerns.
Exposure: Release/production (mass/yr/mass/yr)
Ecological: weighing of 1 for ecological effects
Economics: None
Environmental
Justice: None
Other (specify): None
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Justice: X Yes X No
Other (specify) : Yes X No
188
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated: (Media-specific evaluation not included,
Toxicity Only)
Air Soil Mult i-Media
Surface Water Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
None.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking Based on Toxicity
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: )
Other (describe: ' )
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: None.
Software: None.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and whether it replaces any previous indexing
systems):
Used for internal EPA chemical targeting. Date of development
unknown.
REFERENCES
•
None.
189
-------
V-1
VO
O
-------
10.0 Sediment Contaminant Ranking
Only one screening system was identified for ranking sediment
contaminant levels. The system was developed by the Office of
Science and Technology in the Office of Water, combines data from
the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and Permit Compliance Systems
(PCS). The releases are assigned to geographic locations,
chemical classes, and industrial source categories. Chemical-
specific sediment hazard indices are created based on readily
available toxicity data and physical chemical properties of
interest to weigh annual release amounts according to their
potential hazard. .The chemical releases are analyzed by chemical
class, industrial source category, and geographic location of
release.
191
-------
192
-------
SEDIMENTS
SEDIMENT CONTAMINANT RANKING
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology in the Office of Water
Contact Person: Catherine Fox, U.S. EPA, Water Management
Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Telephone number: (202) 260-1327.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Sediment Contaminant Ranking methodology is currently
being developed by the Office of Science and Technology. The
Sediment Contaminant Ranking consists of four steps. First, a
master list of chemicals of interest is compiled. The chemicals
available in the system were selected based on their presence in
sediment or on EPA lists of chemicals of concern relevant to
sediment contamination and point source releases to surface
water. Annual loading amounts were determined for the chemicals
of interest based on 1991 data in the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) and Permit Compliance System (PCS). The releases were
assigned to geographical locations, chemical classes, and
industrial source categories. Chemical-specific sediment hazard
indices were created based on readily available ecological and
human health toxicity data and physical-chemical properties of
the chemicals of interest to weigh annual release amounts
according to their potential hazard. Although these indices were
chemical-specific, they were independent of site-specific
factors. Established EPA-OW exposure and risk assessment
procedures were employed to develop the relative hazard indices.
Chemical releases normalized to their relative hazard score were
analyzed by chemical class, industrial source category and
geographic location of release.
193
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To identify and rank chemicals and industries that
contribute to the formation of contaminated
sediment and also to identify potential watersheds
of concern as a result of these releases. The
method can be used for assessment, prevention and
enforcement-based remediation of sediment
contamination.
Audience: Agency staff. Also other agencies, states,
Congressional staff, and the general public.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Limitations and inconsistencies between data stored in the
PCS and TRI databases.
• Lack of human health and ecological toxicity data for some
chemicals of potential interest.
• Lack of site-specific data.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Based on the most stringent human health
value and aquatic life values, where both are
available.
Impacts of contaminated sediment on human
health were evaluated based on exposure from
consumption of contaminated aquatic
organisms. Human exposure was calculated
based on available oral Cancer Slope Factors,
Reference Doses, chemical-specific
Bioconcentration Factors (BCFS), ingestion of
6.5 grams/day of fish, and 70 kg as an
average adult body weight.
The TOX score was calculated according to the
following steps:
1. The inverse of the most stringent
(lower) of the human health or aquatic
life chronic sediment toxicity levels
was taken. This resulted in values
194
-------
ranging from 107 (most toxic) to 10"3
(least toxic).
2. The values from #1 were rounded to one
significant figure.
3. All values > 10* were assigned a score
of 10,000. This value is consistent
with the highest toxicity score category
in the Superfund Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) (see page 143).
4. All values < 10'1 were assigned a score
of 0.1. Steps 3 and 4 resulted in TOX
scores that varied over five orders of
magnitude for the various chemicals.
This is similar to the Superfund Hazard
Ranking 'System-, except that the lowest
values used in this study was 0.1
instead of 0.
Exposure: Assumes ingestion of fish at rate of 6.5
g/day for an adult weighing 70 kgs based on
chemical concentration in sediment and
Bioconcentration Factor.
Ecological: The chronic effect levels in the water column
are taken from field data and laboratory test
results, quantitative structure-activity
relationship models or estimates based on
acute effect levels and application factors.
Chemical-specific representative values were
selected according to the following
hierarchy:
1. Chronic Toxicity Test Data - lowest
concentration value for a chronic effect
for a freshwater North American resident
fish or aquatic invertebrate species.
Studies with the following attributes
were preferentially selected:
methodology section cited in published
or well documented procedures;
satisfactory control, measured
concentration; temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, and hardness (for
metals) reported and within reasonable
ranges.
195
-------
2.
3.
Maximum Allowable Toxic
Concentration, calculated as the
geometric means of the NOEC and
LOEC,
Lowest observable effect
concentration,
No Observable Effect Concentration,
and
Chronic growth or reproductive test
for a fish or invertebrate or an
' algal EC50 test with a biologically
significant endpoint.
Estimated MATC from EPA ERL-Duluth's
QSAR system.
Estimated chronic toxicity level from
acute toxicity test data using an
acute:chronic ratio of 10 (level used by
EPA's OPPT in assessing chemicals with
no available test or model data.
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Other (FATE):
None.
None.
A FATE score with sediment adsorption, air-
water partitioning, and aqueous degradation
subfactors was used. The FATE component of
the Sediment Hazard Index can be altered to
better represent the hazard resulting from a
release to air (mobile or point source) or an
application to land for the non-point source
analysis.
Since the sediment hazard index was applied
to annual release amounts, the half-life was
converted to an annual loss rate constant and
multiplied by the transport sub-factor values
to arrive at the final FATE score. The FATE
scores varied over approximately 4 and 1/2
orders of magnitude, similar to the Superfund
HRS persistence score.
The Sediment Hazard Index value was
calculated by multiplying the FATE score by
the TOX score. The values vary on a
continuous scale over 9 orders of magnitude
196
-------
depending on their component FATE and TOX
scores. The highest values to a maximum of
2,500,000 for beryllium and mercury,
represent highly toxic chemicals that are
likely to partition and persist in the
sediment. The smallest values, down to a
minimum of 0.003 for acetone represent
slightly toxic chemicals that are unlikely to
partition or persist in sediment.
TOTAL Score: The Sediment Hazard Score was multiplied by
the annual release amount of these specific
chemicals from individual industrial or
municipal treatment facilities. Hazard
weighted releases were then aggregated and
analyzed at a facility level, by industrial
category, or by geographic location/receiving
waterbody. Chemicals were excluded from the
geographic and industry analyses because of
lack of data. Data aggregation by geographic
category is useful for identifying areas of
concern at the national, regional, state and
waterbody level. Data aggregation by
industrial category provides information on
the types of point sources making significant
contributions to sediment contamination.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (Scores) : X Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
Air Soil Mult i-Media
X Surface Water Ground Water Population
X Sediment
197
-------
Geographic Coverage Area (Nationwide, Regionwide, State, City,
etc.):
User can select specific chemicals, industry codes, and
geographic areas (state, region, waterbody, etc.) for analysis,
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
X Other (actual data is available)
Type of Peer Review:
'__ ' None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
X Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
X External (document currently being reviewed by
peer-reviewers outside the Agency)
X Other (describe: in development stage, extensive peer-
review expected upon completion).
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: 386 computer with adequate memory. Communication
hardware and access to EPA's National Computer
Center in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
to use TRIS, and PCS databases.
Software: Under development in SAS datafile.
Historical Background (information on how this system was
developed and if it replaces other indexing systems):
Pilot source inventory was done for the Gulf of Mexico Program
in 1993. Final document titled: "Comparison of Gulf of Mexico
Drainage Systems Input of Toxic Chemicals and Potential for
Ecological Effects".
198
-------
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994). Draft National
Sediment Contaminant Source Inventory. Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, .S.W.,
Washington, B.C. 20460.
199
-------
-------
11.0 Toxic Release Inventory Systems
A total of eight screening systems that use the Toxic Release
Inventory to screen hazard were identified. Six systems were
designed to evaluate chemicals subject to reporting according to
EPCRA Section 313 and two systems were designed to target
chemicals for the TSCA program.
The matrix on the following pages compares various aspects of
the Toxic Release Inventory screening systems. From this
information, the following items are of interest:
• Exposure Pathways: Due to the limitations of the TRI
database, most systems do not directly address exposure
pathways. One system, the Chemical Indexing System for the
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, Part I: Chronic Index,
evaluates exposure in Phase II of the analysis. Another
system, the Risk Targeting System evaluates both the
inhalation and ingestion exposure pathways.
• Concentration Term: As mentioned above, exposure
assessments are limited by the nature of the TRI database
(see Limitations Matrix). Most systems use high end data or
defer analysis to Phase II.
• Population: Six systems evaluate the impacts on populations
surrounding specific facilities or as part of the screening
exercise in a larger geographic area. The Toxics Release
Inventory Environmental Indicators Draft Methodology
includes a scoring method for ranking potentially exposed
populations. Another system, the Chemical Scoring System
for Hazard and Exposure Identification, uses estimated
values for occupational and consumer exposure.
• Ecological Risk: Six of the eight systems evaluate
ecological risk at some point in the analysis. Readers are
referred to the Quantitative Algorithms matrix in this
section for more detailed descriptions.
• Limitations: System limitations described for most systems
include data gaps in toxicity and exposure information. In
addition, most systems are limited to chemicals subject to
reporting under EPCRA Section 313.
201
-------
202
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY SYSTEMS MATRIX
See also
Source Category Ranking System (page 13),
Indexing System for Comparing Toxic Air Pollutants Based upon
Potential Environmental Impacts (page 39),
Region III 1991 MERIT Project Comparison of SARA Title III
Airborne Toxic Release with Observed Human Cancer Mortality Rates
(page 43),
Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) (page 73),
Region VI Human Health Risk Index (page 81),
Multimedia Ranking System (page 95),
Region X Risk Based Multimedia Targeting System (page 103),
Region IX Geographic Information System Multimedia Pilot
Project (page 181)
203
-------
Toxic Release Inventory Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION
Aj lULJILIHt
ncvwrijin.
OJrWlVfll
LvgteMkm:
Geographic
Coverage:
Pttr RvvlMv:
CHEMICAL INDEXING
SYSTEM FOR THE
TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY,
PART 1: CHRONIC INDEX
CHRONIC INDEX
ttVQ0tlng end strategic
planning.
EPCRA
Rvgtonsi end Stsftv-
•padflc.
QffiCM* puMSnod M
CHEMICAL SCORING
SYSTEM FOR HAZARD
AND EXPOSURE
IDENTIFICATION
N/A
uUMiiivy ivm «w KMiuiy
BwMwaMM
rlUgrVTI.
technics^ stsff.
TSCA
N/A
OTS TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY
RISK SCREENING
GUIDE, VOLUMES 1 AND
II
MM
na tool for MWngitek-
up study of TR1 facHtlM
-
Oov0mniMit,
•nd Q6n0r§J public.
EPCRA
NMtaiWl
tnQfnl cKtoM, Indmtry,
^•Mtft^V^A
•CvQVnM.
REGION III 1989 TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
PROJECT RANKING
SYSTEM
N/A
code. MwitlflM "woort"
R00iuii HI pvuyiBiii
niMWQW.
EPCnA \ Av fWMM09
only)
Regional
TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
KVA
... M ™
hi ^^ilah k'Hute FV^t
chronic numm hMtth.
EPCRA
U^M**^^
nvnoiwi
REGION VII TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
GEOGRAPHIC RISK
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
TIGRAS
•pedflc WM. Eco-risk
rnimwtaiinai v« ^an
Included
-»,. —
CPA ifMnAQWi md •tiff
EPCRA
SM». County or Zip-
ootto tovfll.
Raabvi V MM! fMlr*«rf
TBchnotoQy TnvtsMr
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACTS
TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY
CHEMICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT PRE-
SCREENING
METHODOLOGY
N/A
LWCiyilfMJ iw MIVU II IV
under TSCA.
TSCA
RcMtMtopopuMkm
•h« (Mroundlng •
faddy.
IIIUJIIHB • «U| IVpUltM iv
rwiowod Jounnl.
RISK
TARGETIN8
SYSTEM
RTS
EPCRA. CAA
ZlfH»dM
\/ii
AHxmMlonr CAA, ClMn Air Act; RCRA, R«wwc* Coo§««tton and Rwovwy Act TRI, Toxte RitoM* trmntofy, OAQPS, Offle» 0» Air CkWDly Planning and Stanterdt; and SAB, Sdtnc* Advtaoy Boanl.
204
-------
Toxic Release Inventory Systems Matrix - GENERAL INFORMATION CONTINUED
Output
Yaar Davatoead:
OmnnyUMd:
La^*4ua*M«»*
nvowv.
SofhMra:
CHEMICAL INOEXINO
SYSTEM FOR THE
TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY,
PART 1: CHRONIC INDEX
Relative rmlt Of •MfvUUM
Fonn R report* GIS Map
of relative toxtely
aggragatad Dy 8Xfl, and
1x1 frtte grid*. Faculty-
•pacific form R ctaUi
provided hi tabular form.
Defnoy aphlc i provided In
PIMM II.
1993 and ongoing
YM
PC:486/33mHz/100MB
data «torao«ffl MB RAM;
Data General AVfcN
Woffcstatlon
TRIS. IRIS2. LOTUS.
DB*M III*. Arclnfo,
Malnfranie
vuii>i«m^uui» (WtKOg*.
CHEMICAL SCORING
SYSTEM FOR HAZARD
AND EXPOSURE
IDENTIFICATION
Sont'CfUBnUlBthfa ranking
J ftt^frif*^* »jn|t|-|«JhMl •>
01 cnonvcOT ncmmng •
•SSMSfTwnt.
1981 to conjunction HDD
OARUgcNirt
Laboratory.
WA
N/A
WA
OTS TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY
RISK SCREENING
GUIDE. VOLUMES 1 AND
II
ctaMlnadMhlgh.
rnoderde or low concent.
19W
N/A
PC
nOADMAPS
REGION III 1989 TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
PROJECT RANKING
SYSTEM
lndu§tnaa( zlp^odas, or
oountlaa. pkn GIS map
output.
1
1991
NO
PC/486 machha. Data
Ganaral Syttamtar GIS
output*.
Wyher, DtMM 111+
TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY
CNV1RONMEMTAL
INDICATORS DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
RaMlM ranking of TRI
facMtlas.
Oratt1992
NO
Dapandant upon
tfavaloprllBnl of uaar*
nMnoQf Inlanvoa.
Dapandant upon
davabpniant of uaar-
REGION VII TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
GEOGRAPHIC RISK
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
GIS map and ratabVa
rankkig of gaographle
araaa baaad on 20%
IncnMnanni. Ovartayaof
population (tea* and
tand U*M nwy be
hdudad.
1990
N8
DaMGantnilAVkoN
Wtorkslfltlon
Afdnfb
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACTS
TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY
CHEMICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT PRE-
SCREEMNG
METHODOLOGY
ReMlw i'flnUn0 of
TRI ohennlcato for
potantWTSCA
reQuMlon.
NfA
WA
NTA
•
WA
RISK
TARGETINQ
SYSTEM
RaMMranUng
of TRI IMKIai.
MfA
MfA
IBM compel tow
DOS
205
-------
Toxic Release Inventory Systems Matrix - LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
-foxfcRy
(pjsnaraly
systems lack
tax tdty data
for many
pollutants;
non-cafdnoQjsns)
Twm)
• CfMnricflto
-Exposure
-PopuMton
,|
-00MT
CHEMICAL INDEXING
SYSTEM FOR THE TOXIC
CHEMICAL RELEASE
INVENTORY.
PART 1: CHRONIC INDEX
mlim and IRIS teddly
data (msteto and cnsnttest
ftnldly factor chOMn I
dVTsrsncss In
MomriMriMy.
only.
AtMtMdki Phwe II using
•ItoipvcMcdM.
cnsmlcBto.
AiMSMdki PIMM II uttag
•totpMfflcdita.
AMMMd In PIMM II using
Assumss socaptsnca of
RfD snd CRAVE workgroup
CHEMICAL SCORING
SYSTEM FOR HAZARD
AND EXPOSURE
IDENTIFICATION
Toxfcfty score* uss the
avaNaMs data and may
contain may contain
avaMsbfa data and may
Data gaps sxtot for
oonsumsr and
occupational
popuMloos.
Occupational and
consumer exposure
taMdonMttmrtM.
OTS TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY
RISK SCREENING
GUIDE. VOLUMES 1 AND
II
RMuM M highly
quefltstlvs. Numsrous
(•MtoxfcllylmlMlons)
CurnNiHyMMto
EPCRAchamteib.
tubpopuMloni.
r*A
REGION 1111989 TOXIC
CHEMICAL RELEASE
INVENTORY PROJECT
RANKING SYSTEM
If Inhalatton toxldty data to
not svsHsMs, ofaJ toxldty
factors sre substituted.
sstlmats axposure.
Unritsd to chemicals wRn
CPSs. RTOs or RfCs.
Tns systsm to Ibirflsd to the
(nhststlon pathway.
WA
N/A
TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
ConttlMdtrauRwkiM.
used on a sRs-spscMc
bssto.
Cannot ba appssd to
worker exposure or sNs-
reteaes.
Ranks poputstloTUJ
based on stes and
potential sotposurs.
Doss not consWsr
scotoglcal Impacts yet.
REGION VII TOXIC
RELEASE
INVENTORY
GEOGRAPHIC RISK
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
for cancer and notv
Assumss toxic
toaolnos of mufflpto
cnernlcsbars addRlve.
PoMcat boundaries
u««d h feu of *
transport models. No
eppRcstlona for
soVground water
k^rflku.*
DMVigt.
LMtodttEPCRA
N/A
N/A
WA
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACTS
TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY
CHEMICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT PRE-
8CREEMNG
METHODOLOGY
b«Mdonlyb«Mdon
rang* of 0-10. Flral
ranking for tovol of
hazard It bw«d on
N/A
LMMtoEPCRA
chwnlcfllt.
N/A
OANHMMWUnHtoof
total exposed
population! sunroundhQ
facMles.
WA
RISK
TARGETING
SYSTEM
Does not
•ndKuM USM
vthiMlntar-
chanojssJbly.
WOE A-3;B-2;
C.D.E-3.
TRlMlMMlM*
only.
UmNdto
EPCRA
Innatolton and
Ingest Ion only.
C«nw*fc«ct
Iwytdonzlp-
eodM.
N/A
206
-------
Toxic Release Inventory Systems Matrix - QUANTITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QUANTIFICATION
Toxfcty
-Cancer
-Non-Cm*
1 Aggregate
2. Reproductive
3. Acute-Short Terni
4 Non-lethal acute
6. Chronic
ft. Naurotoxldty
T. Ganotoxldly
-Data
1. IRIS
2. HEAST
3. TLVi
4. RTECS
t. HSDB
lOther
Expoeure
- Central Tend.
• Mojh End
-MB
EcofOQlcfll
Economlct
• Tvcnootofiy
-Other
Environmental Justice.
Other
CHEMICAL INDEXING
SYSTEM FOR THE
TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY,
PART 1: CHRONIC
INDEX
X
X
X
X
X
XECAOprovMml
due. NTP or open
Rerature.
Phme II: tie specKIc
exposure aueMment.
Phase II; site ipecjnc
N/A
Phne II: tile ipecfte
N/A
CHEMICAL SCORING
SYSTEM FOR HAZARD
AND EXPOSURE
IDENTIFICATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X Subchronlc
X
Aquatic •cute LCJEC.
•nd chronic NOEL.
NM
N/A
N/A
OTS TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY
RISK SCREENING
GUIDE. VOLUMES 1
AND II
X
X
X
X
X.TPQ.RQ
X
F«Mt twvd transport
CTMnKtarlttlcs.
N/A
N/A
Fete flnd trvMport.
REGION III 1989 TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
PROJECT RANKING
SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
X
X (ECAO prevMonaldata)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
X
X
X
X
X
WMereoM>My.Loe_
BCF, LC». chronte
NQAF1. x.utWitmmtf.
AWQC.
N/A
N/A
Population.
REGION VII TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
GEOGRAPHIC RISK
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
X
X (ECAO provMonaJ .
data)
UeeeTRI loading.
Rlvtr nittcn 3 MnMni
flCMM, fttalM
•Mtanhatk.LC..
Qrowth for prtnury
produow.
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACTS
TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY
CHEMICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT PRE-
SCREEMNG
METHODOLOGY
X
X
X
X
hipjh, ifwdlunv low.
BCF.
N/A
N/A
N/A
RISK
TARGETING
SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
X
X(OTSRMc
QM^^M^MI
ClUWMm
GuUe)
UM*I •corbiQ
^•yttanv
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
207
-------
Toxic Release Ihventory Systems Matrix - QUALITATIVE ALGORITHMS
QuMMIv*
Anenmani:
•Ctnotr
-NonOnnr
-Expowre
-Ecological
• Economics
- Env. Juttto
-00m
CHEMICAL INDEXING
SYSTEM FOR TOE
TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY.
PART 1: CHRONIC INDEX
X
X
X
X
X
CHEMICAL SCORING
SYSTEM FOR HAZARD
AND EXPOSURE
IDENTIFICATION
X
X
X
X
OTS TOXIC CHEMICAL
RELEASE INVENTORY
RISK SCREENING
GUIDE. VOLUMES 1 AND
II
X
X
X
X
XtRtok)
REGION III 1969 TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
PROJECT RANKING
SYSTEM
X
X
TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS DRAFT
METHODOLOGY
X
X
X
X
REGION VII TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY
GEOGRAPHIC RISK
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
X
X
X
X
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACTS
TOXIC RELEASE
INVENTORY
CHEMICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT PRE-
SCREEMNG
METHODOLOGY
X
X
X
X cnwrvcM nwy DO
•xductod bated on
•KwtbiQ reguMlons or
MMSsmsnte.
RISK
TARGETING
SYSTEM
NTA
208
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
CHEMICAL INDEXING FOR THE
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY,
PART I: CHRONIC INDEX
Acronym: Chronic Index
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division
Contact Person: Debra L. Forman, Air, Radiation and Toxics
Division, U. S. EPA, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107. Telephone number: (215) 597-3175
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
Method for evaluating EPCRA chemical releases in terms of
their toxicity as well as mass. The system includes a media-
specific, multi-component Index which utilizes a dose-based
approach to rank Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemical releases.
Part I of the Chemical Indexing System is the "Chronic Index"
which expresses the TRI mass of a chemical in terms of its
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. Chemical releases
which do not have an associated toxicity factor are ranked
according to the amount of the release (Residual Mass). Blue-
coded maps represent the Chronic Indices, red-coded maps depict
Residual Mass and green-coded maps show a combination of the
highest ranking Chronic Index grids and the highest ranking
Residual Mass grids. The system is intended to support
enforcement targeting and strategic planning efforts with a more
comprehensive evaluation of TRI chemical releases.
209
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: Enforcement targeting and strategic planning
within Region III programs. A method for
evaluating EPCRA chemical releases.
Audience: Regional and State management.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Chemical class reporting and valence states: EPCRA permits
reporting of chemical classes, however, there may be no
corresponding toxicity value. Metals reported to TRI as
compounds are assumed to possess the toxicity factor
associated with the most toxic metal species reported in IRIS.
Other chemical class reporting is handled similarly.
• Exposure route: The current Index uses oral toxicity data for
all release categories.
• Bioavailability: Toxicity factors may vary according to the
mode of ingestion, i.e. with food or water. If two toxicity
factors are reported, the current Index adopts the factor
reported for drinking water.
• Standard Dose Scale: The current Index assumes acceptance of
the current RfD and CRAVE workgroup processes. Each process
contains elements of uncertainty which stem both from
subjective judgements and calculated mathematical error.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: For purposes of equivalent comparisons, all
toxicity factors are expressed in terms of
dose. Non--carcinogen dose is expressed as
the oral Reference Dose (RfD) equivalent to a
hazard index of 1.
The oral carcinogen dose is calculated at a
reference risk of 1 x 10"4, obtained by
solving the equation used to derive the q*1.
Thus, risk=l - e"qd where q=carcinogenic
potency factor, d=dose, and risk=l x 10~4.
210
-------
For compounds possessing both noncarcinogenic
and carcinogenic toxicity factors, the dose
is calculated according to the following
equation:
Dose
DoseNC Dosec
where DoseT = total chronic dose,
DoseNC = noncarcinogenic dose, and
Dosec = carcinogenic dose.
The calculated dose is converted to units of
mg/d to correspond to the reported TRI
release units (Ib/yr) using the following
conversion factors:
1 year = 365 days
1 Ib = 0.435 kg
1 kg = 1 x 106 mg
The TRI releases for each compound are
divided by the calculated chronic dose. The
resultant hazard values (Chronic Indices) are
ranked and target chemicals are identified
which simultaneously account for both
carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic toxicity.
Chronic Indices are also aggregated by
facility and facility indices are aggregated
within 8x8 mile geographic grid areas. The
aggregated grids are ranked and regional maps
are produced. Those chemicals that do not
possess primary or secondary toxicity factors
are evaluated as "Residual Mass" and are
ranked according to the mass released for
each TRI category. Both Chronic Index
Residual Mass grid distributions are
normalized and combined into a composite map.
Phase II includes aggregation of the Chronic
Indices and Residual Mass indices within a 1
x 1 mile grid area and demographics analysis
(see Page 115) . Both qualitative and
quantitative analyses are included.
See D. L. Fortnan, Chemical Indexing System
for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part
I: Chronic Index, U.S. EPA Region III
Technical Guidance Manual, (November 1993) .
211
-------
Exposure: None
Ecological: None
Economics: None
Environmental None
Justice:
Other (specify): None
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity:
Exposure:" (Phase II)
Ecological: (Phase II)
Economics :
Environmental
Justice: (Phase II)
Other (specify) :
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
X Yes
X Yes
X Yes
Yes
X Yes
Yes
AND GEOGRAPHIC
No
No
No
X No
No
X No
INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
_ Air _ Soil X Mult i -Media
_ Surface Water _ Ground Water _ Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Depends on application, coverage may range from single
facility to Region-wide application.
Output t
X Map
X Relative Ranking of Toxicity
X Other (specify)
8X8 mile grids, 1X1 mile grids,
demographics and priority list of
chemicals and facilities.
212
-------
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
X External (describe: Regional Risk Assessors Group)
X Other (describe: ORD and EPCRA policy offices)
DATABASE REQUIREMENTS
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: IBM PC 386 with 4 MB RAM for indexing
GIS Workstation for mapping
Software: Spreadsheet software (LOTUS 4.01)
x Data base software (DBASE II1+)
GIS software (Arc/Info)
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
This system was based on information presented in the Region
III 1989 Toxic Release Inventory Ranking System Project (see page
227) .
REFERENCES
Forman, D. L. (1993). Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Part I: Chronic Index, U.S. EPA
Region III Technical Guidance Manual, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. (November 1993).
213
-------
214
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
CHEMICAL SCORING SYSTEM FOR
HAZARD AND EXPOSURE IDENTIFICATION
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Contact Person: Terry O'Bryan, U.S. EPA, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-
3483.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
(e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
Initial (rough-cut) screening tool to identify candidates for
further assessment using readily available measures of exposure,
toxicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental persistence. The output
is a ranking of chemicals indicating a need for more refined
assessment. The output is semi-quantitative.
215
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To identify candidates for detailed
assessment in the Toxics Existing Chemical
Program in the Office of Prevention and Toxic
Substances.
Audience: Internal EPA OPPT management and technical
staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
The system is based on readily available data and data gaps
exist. The output is a preliminary hierarchy of concern for
further analysis based on toxicity.
Quantitative Algorithms;
Toxicity. Toxicity is based on a relative ranking of
various health effects as identified below:
Cancer:
4-6 score if carcinogenicity is seen in
1 species only - score within
range determined by severity
of disease;
7-9 score if carcinogenicity is seen in
2 or more species - score is
severity-determined.
Genotoxicity:
0-9 score based on severity of effect
and weight of evidence
Developmental toxicity:
0-9 score based on severity of effect
and weight of evidence
Acute lethality:
0-9 score based on LC50/LD50 values
216
-------
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Non-lethal acute toxicity:
0-9 score
based on severity of effect
and corresponding doses
Subchronic/chronic toxicity:
0-9 score
based on severity of effect
and corresponding dose
0-9 score for each:
1) occupational exposure,
2) consumer exposure, based on estimated
numbers and intensity of exposure
Aquatic toxicity:
0-9 score
based on acute LC50/EC50 and
chronic NOEL
Bioconcentration:
0-9 score
based on Bioconcentration
Factor (BCF) and Kow
None
None - relative toxicity ranking.
Other (specify): None
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes
Exposure: X Yes
Ecological: X Yes
Economics: Yes
No
No
No
No
Environmental
Justice:
Other (specify):
Yes
Yes
X No
X No
217
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil Multi -Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water Population Only
Note: water media are not differentiated
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
None - relative ranking only based on toxicity.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking based on toxicity.
Other (specify )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: published in J. Toxicology and
Environmental Health)
Other (describe:
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: None
Software: None
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
Developed in the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) in 1981 in
conjunction with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. - The current
system is limited in use to identifying high hazard petroleum
distillates.
218
-------
REFERENCES
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health.
219
-------
\
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY
RISK SCREENING GUIDE, VOLUMES I AND II
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Toxic Substances, Health and Review Division
Contact Person: David Klauder, U.S. EPA, Office of
Toxic Substances, Health and Review Division, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-
7667.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory Risk Screening Guide (Volumes I and II) centers around
a qualitative measurement of risk based on several chemical-
specific and site-specific factors. The user selects an exposure
route, location of release, release zones and populations of
interest. Site-specific factors may include meteorological (e.g.
wind direction), engineering (e.g. stack height) or exposure
pattern data. Chemical-specific factors include toxicity, mass
released, and qualitative statements regarding environmental
fate. The.user completes Facility Worksheets and Relative Risk
Worksheets to classify a release as high, moderate or low
concern.
221
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use:
Audience;
The system is intended as a tool for setting
risk-based priorities for follow-up
investigation of TRI facilities and chemicals
within a specified geographic area.
Government and non-government agencies or the
general public.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Results are highly qualitative. Numerous assumptions for each
parameter produces large associated uncertainties. Only
chemicals (TRI list) and SIC codes (20-39) subject to EPCRA
manufacturing thresholds are considered.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity:
ToacttyMu
Tmtbtf
nans/"
MDfaAgAir
CPF tmg/kgffi"
WOCtng/lJ"
Tojocohffici/ fottncy Gnops
Ptt9$9 J0Hf Ctof fAff AMfrMv/ 9C0MS 919
• ••&fa*rf 'ttmlSitmtti mml mitmmtttmtiti mtti
Sean- 1
1-100
1-100
-------
Other (Environmental Fate And Transport):
Environmental Fate and Transport
Ptnmtttr Cat-Off
Critttii
Henry's liw a W
'itnuiffmol
fnttOel
HuHy-tLtw & 10
•>tm*fM
fao/ivoittik/
tig toe H I.S
Inontockibltl
Log toe a 4.5
luclublt!
BCF 1* 1000
BCF £ 250
n*ir
n ^ am
umplui in montht-
n*
amptaiu
Whys
dawnmonl
nptinmonl
Tmuport
VoliOattion
+
•
Inching mil
SoiMeUty
+
m
AJKMCMftMiW
*•
+
•
Tniufonmtioas EmrinuMnttl Fitil
Atotic
Dtgnttttion
wit*
+
•
toi
+
-
Biotic
Dtgaditiui
mar
+
•
toi
+
-
BMogictl Tnttmmt
P-fhrtMam
Bjiodigrtdition
+
-
223
-------
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (Risk) : X Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air X Soil Multi-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water X Population
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Analysis performed on specific facilities. Coverage depends
on resource allocation.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify ; )
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
X External: personnel from State and Local Environmental
Management Offices)
X Others comments also received from industry, private
consultants and academia)
224
-------
DATABASE REQUIREMENTS
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Personal computer.
Software: ROADMAPS
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
One of the first attempts at using Indexing to prioritize and
target TRI releases. Based primarily on Hazard Ranking System
(page 143).
REFERENCES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Office of Toxic
Substances Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening
Guide, Volumes I and II. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic
Substances, Washington, D.C.
225
-------
226
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
REGION III 1989 TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
PROJECT RANKING SYSTEM
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
Contact Person: Jeffrey Burke, Environmental Services
Division, U. S. EPA, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107. Telephone number: (215) 597-8327.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Region III 1989 Toxic Release Inventory Project Ranking
System provides a method for combining data from the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) with toxicity information. Calculations
are performed by multiplying the Cancer Potency Factor by the TRI
emissions. For non-cancer health effects the TRI emissions are
divided by the Reference Dose. Air emissions are evaluated using
the inhalation Cancer Potency Factor and/or Reference
Concentration (RfC) if available.
The system allows a quantitative comparison based on the
ranking strategy of releases to media, chemical facility, zip
code, SIC code, and county.
227
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: To identify "worst" releases by a risk-weighted
analysis.
Audience: Region III program managers.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• The system does not estimate exposure.
• The number of chemicals that can be evaluated is limited by
the availability of Cancer Potency Factors (inhalation and
oral), Reference Doses, and Reference Concentrations.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: Cancer Potency Factor X Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI).
TRI Release / RfD
TRI Release / RfC
Exposure: None.
Ecological: None.
Economics: None.
Environmental None.
Justice:
Other (specify): None.
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
228
-------
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Mult i-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water Population
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Region-wide. TRI site-specific data can be aggregated at the
industry, zip-code, or county level to develop the weighted
release information.
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify )
Type of Peer Review:
.None
X Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe:
X Other: (ongoing project)
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: DOS-based PC/486 machine. For maps a Geographic
Information System with Arc/Info software and
output device is needed.
Software: D-Base III+ or higher. ARC/INFO version 6.1
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
229
-------
See the Region III Chemical Indexing System for TRI data on
page 209 that describes enhancements to the system.
REFERENCES
None.
230
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
DRAFT METHODOLOGY
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division
Contact Person: Nicholaas Bouwes, U. S. EPA, Economics,
Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone number: (202) 260-1622.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Toxics Release'Inventory (TRI) Environmental Indicators
methodology provides facility-specific indicators of TRI impacts
on human health and ecological receptors. The intent of the
method is to develop these indicators on a yearly basis to help
identify trends. Currently, the indicators consider chronic
toxicity, exposure potential and release and transfer volumes of
the TRI chemical. The human health indicator is based on chronic
toxicity, exposure and population size, the ecological indicator
is based on chronic toxicity and exposure. Each component is
weighted according to specific categories or bins with assigned
scores. When the weighing exercise is completed, scores for each
component are assigned and the scores are summed. Facility
scores may be tracked from year to year to determine trends in
environmental risk.
231
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: Currently in Draft Form. The method is
intended as an internal decision-making tool
for EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel.
Audience: EPA managers.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Currently does not consider Ecological impacts. Those listed
below are proposed.
• Contains default values, therefore, cannot be used on a site-
specific basis.
• Assumes continuous release.
• Cannot be applied to worker exposures.
Quantitative Algorithms:
General Approach:
TRI Indicator - £ (Human Health Indicator + Ecological Indicator)
For Year to year tracking:
TRI Indicator - IT. IHuman Health Indicator + Ecological lndkatorl)fHml)m x 100%
(Y, Woman Health Indicator * Ecological Indicator))^ ^
Chronic Human Health Indicator^ - Toxicity Weight f x Exposure weight^ x
Adjusted Population^
where Toxicity Weight - see Tables 1 and 2 below
Exposure Weight - see Table 3 below
Adjusted population - see Table 6 below
i - chemical
j - facility
k - environmental medium
232
-------
Toxicity:
Table 1: Human Carcinogens
Wiight «f Endtnct
CknKMiM
Utwttr
MM*
ftufl*
mm*
Aunt in if
e, a
1000000
loom
Table 2: Human Non-Carcinogens
Wight iffMaitt tie HfD tnitbM
fiboMM**
CwMir
/taM*
ftaUt
mm*
III! f
SfUfmHMff
CM**7
4f
f
TSCAO^ct/Saaf
jXMdtvr
M
«
OJXXXK
loom
10000
Exposure:
Exposure estimates are calculated using mathematical models
Stack and Fugitive Air. Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT)
Direct Surface Water and POTW effluent: Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS)
Land Releases: Leachate concentration model with an attenuation/dilution factor of 100185th
percentile of Monte Carlo analysis used in TCLP rulemaking, Office of Solid Waste)
Table 3: Human Exposure
Unoftfiaty
Cttigny
A
B
C
Estimate Expttun Img/kg-diyl
< 0.0005
1
02
0.1
OMOHM5
10
2
1
O.OOH.05
100
20
W
O.OM.S
1000
200
100
0.5-5
10000
2000
1000
5-50
100000
20000
10000
>so
1000000
200000
100000
A: combints eoemeil eoneentnooa moaaing with both gtntnc tad atptnaiue tat tptanc utt.
B: am is A. but oft-specific ton is suojoct to tmr.
C: vtfosun tstmtts gentntid from ictial ittt it after atu is txtrtpoltttd to srtt undtf cuutitntiui.
233
-------
Ecological: . (PROPOSED)
Chronic Ecological Indicatorf - Toricity Weightf x Exposure Weight^
where Toacity Weight - see Table 4 below
Exposure Weight - see Table S below
i - chemical
j~ facility
k - environmental medium
Table 4: Aquatic Toacity
BUnamaMia
War
*u*r
*W
>ism
a»ian
1S-SU
•
<2S
Ayfer
<«•
o.u
HJ
3J4S
*MS
S.S-S.O
ecru*
<;
I-H
to-oo
loum
tmiMU
>inm
UUcfOir
flkMkMMS
1C.
AatiAWaCr
MUC
cm*Amxr
MUC
> Id
>im
>mm
>im
«5
5
a
m
am
SUM
a- ao
leo-im
turn-
mum
tu-tm
s
a
m
am
sum
mm
m CittgKF MOAEL w MB mgAgMiy
i-n
ffita
tm-njm
10-00
a
m
am
am
amu
amm
0.1-1
1-10
i»im
i-io
an
am
amo
amu
6000000
ammo
1000
10000
y.
234
-------
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
None.
None.
Other (Population):
Table 6: Human Population
ttHKrt?
Mr
A
B
C
Cktf9Ct9nttic '
ApoMw iniswtl chincttritid. datict with conttianitid utdit it h&nt to ifftct mutvil
mmtan if tin upoud poputttion.
ftyubtiui it chmctirini with emit Mi which my onrutimtti m if up*t*l populitien. CuUct
iwMh f*mt»n*nmtmd maittm it hatmvttt ttt tffmft matt OF mM gmWlhffS ff tIDOStd fOOUtltion.
Papulttion it chmctiriai with tnii to* which miy unattmiti m it upmi poprttion. Ctattct
with eoutiuiMtit auto occurs with in unknown faction if then ptUntUy upoud.
Sun
1
0.1
HOI
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity:
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
Other (specify):
_x_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
X No
X No
\
X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
_X_ Air _X_
X Surface Water X
Soil
Ground Water
Multi-Media
Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Facility-specific indicator is developed. These may be
aggregated according to any geographic limit, i.e. single
facility, neighborhood, city, county, state, multistate, nation,
etc.
235
-------
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe:
X Other (under development)
DATABASE REQUIREMENTS
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: Dependent upon development of user-friendly
interface.
Software: Depending upon development of interface.
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
Based on the desire to use TRI information to develop an
indicator of environmental well-being.
REFERENCES
System still under development and publications are not
available.
236
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
REGION VII TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
GEOGRAPHIC RISK
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Acronym: TIGRAS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII
Contact Person: Jaci Ferguson, U.S. EPA, Region VII,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Telephone
number: (913) 551-7310.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Toxic Release Inventory Geographic Risk Analysis System
(TIGRAS) provides users the ability to access Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory (TRI) data to determine relative toxic loadings
over a geographic-specific area. Relative human health concerns
are approximated by combining Integrated Risk Information
System/Health Effects' Assessment Summary Table (IRIS/HEAST)
toxicity values with the annual TRI loading per facility, zip
code, county or state.
Ecological risk comparisons use aquatic toxicity values, TRI
loadings and river reach 3 stream volumetric flows to estimate
relative risk.
Outputs are created using Geographic Information System (CIS)
mapping technology. The outputs include color-coding for high to
low geographic areas based on 20% increments. Overlays of
population sizes and land uses can be used.
237
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use: Created for versatility; can be used for risk
management by Superfund Remedial Project Managers
and RCRA for extra-site concerns, for prioritizing
National Permit Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit reviews, and for determining issues
on air permits.
Audience: Agency staff including Superfund RPM's, permit
writers (i.e., Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), air, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, risk managers, lead program
managers, and others.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Political boundaries are used for human health risk
comparisons in lieu of air transport models. There are no
apparent applications for soil and groundwater loadings.
Separate analyses are carried out for non-cancer and cancer
effects, therefore it is not possible to carry out "cross
effects" comparison.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: For human health, Reference Doses (RfDs),
Reference Concentrations (RfCs), Oral Cancer
Potency Factors and Inhalation Unit Risk
Values (from IRIS, HEAST, and the
Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office).
Exposure: TRI loading information sited by facility
latitude/longitude is used.
Ecological: River reach 3 stream flows and related
watersheds are used.
For ecological assessments Lethal
Concentrations LCsos (48-hr) for primary and
secondary consumers are used. Alternatively,
if no LC50 data are available, population
growth data or lethality data for primary
producers are used.
Economics: None.
238
-------
Environmental Not at this time. Future development could
Justice: include this aspect using data from the 1990
census.
Other (specify): The approach assumes relative toxic loadings
of multiple chemicals are additive.
Relative Toxic Loading (human):
cancer: air loading (Ibs/yr) x inhalation unit risk
non-cancer: air loading (Ibs/yr) x 1/Rfc
surface water loading / stream flow /48-hr LC50
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: X Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Mult i-Media
X Surface Water Ground Water Population Only
239
-------
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Analysis can be carried out at the zip code, county, or state
level. For the ecological analysis river reach 3 watersheds are
analyzed.
Output:
X Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify ; . )
Type of Peer Review:
None
X Internal region-specific
X Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe:
X Other (describe: reviewed by Region V and Office of
Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support at HQ
contacts)
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: CIS workstation.
Software: ARC/INFO
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
TIGRAS was developed by the Region VII Friends of TRI, an
interprogrammatic workgroup originally led by Dermont Bouchard,
the Region VII Regional Scientist. The group has been working
toward the goal of making TRI useful to the various programs in
the Regional Office since the fall of 1990.
REFERENCES
None.
240
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
REGION VII RISK TARGETING SYSTEM (RTS)
Acronym: RTS
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII
Contact Person: Jim Hirtz, U.S. EPA, Region VII,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Telephone
number: (913) 551-7472.
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk^
environmental justice and other):
The Region VII Risk Targeting System (RTS) is a computer
program designed to rank and list facilities that report to the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database by relative risk. The
program has a basic formula which evaluates a chemical emission
by toxicity, carcinogenicity, chemical release amount, and the
media of the release. The risk values for each chemical are then
summed to obtain a numerical risk figure. These risk figures can
be added for each facility and then compared to obtain a relative
risk value for each facility.
RTS can also rank chemicals based on these relative values.
Rankings can be performed for a specific zip code or a range of
zip codes for a particular geographic area.
Recent additions to the system include a historic profile
feature which tracks improvements or increases in risk values for
each facility. An additional feature includes a ranking and
chemical listing program for individual SIC codes.
RTS is currently being used to target facilities for data
quality inspection under Section 313 of EPCRA and inspections
conducted under the Clean Air Act.
241
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use and Audience:
Use:
Audience:
To prioritize facilities for inspection; to
generate TRI facility or chemical reports for
reporting and research purposes.
EPCRA Section 313 inspectors and Clean Air Act
inspectors.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Political boundaries are used to approximate air transport.
Factors such as toxicity, ozone depletion, population
density, release media and carcinogenicity are equally given
a 1 - 3 weight based on ranges of values or weight of
evidence.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity:
For air releases, the hierarchy of preference on
which to base the toxicity factor is: Reportable
Quantities Chronic Mammal Toxicity*; Threshold
Planning Quantities*; Reportable Quantities
Acute*;
and RfD
Exposure:
Ecological
Economics:
For releases to water, the hierarchy of preference
on which to base the toxicity factor is:
Reportable Quantities, Aquatic Toxicity*, Water
Quality Criteria Chronic*, and Water Quality
Criteria Acute* .
* See Toxic Release Inventory Risk Screening
Guide - EPA 560/2-89-002, version 1.0,
July 1989, for an explanation of these values.
For carcinogens, the factors are assigned values
as follows: A (3), B (2), C/D/E (1).
Fugitive air release, media factor = 3
Stack/point air release, media factor = 2.
Water, land, underground injection,
media factor = 1.
None.
None.
Environmental
Justice: None.
242
-------
Other: The approach assumes relative risk figures
are additive:
Risk Value = E (pounds/year/media) X (media factor) X {toxicity
factor) X (cancer factor).
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: Yes X No
Exposure: Yes X No
Ecological: Yes X No
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes X No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil X Mult i-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water Population
Geographic Coverage Area -(State, Region-wide, etc.):
Analysis can be carried out at the zip code level.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe:
Other (describe: )
243
-------
DATABASE AVAILABILITY
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: DOS operating system computer.
Software:
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
First developed for five-year strategic planning for Region
VII in 1990.
REFERENCES
None.
244
-------
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT'S
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
CHEMICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
PRE-SCREENING METHODOLOGY
Acronym: N/A
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Contact Person: U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20460, (202) 260-
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
The Toxic Substances Control Act's Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) Chemical Risk Assessment Pre-Screening Methodology is
designed to select the most likely candidates among Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) chemicals for possible regulation under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Ranking is done using two
components of risk assessment, exposure assessment and hazard
assessment. Chemicals already being assessed or regulated are
eliminated from further analysis. Output is a ranking of
chemicals recommended for future consideration under TSCA.
Exposure values are qualitatively assigned (none, low, medium,
or high ratings) based on perceived probability of release.
Numbers of exposed persons is qualitatively estimated (high,
medium, low, or none) by the population surrounding production
sites or industrial use sites. Scores for toxicity are based on
a range of 0 to 10, for oncogenicity, genotoxicity, developmental
toxicity, and bioconcentration. Final ranking is based on
professional judgment on level of hazard.
245
-------
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use (be specific):
Use: Preliminarily screen for future regulatory
consideration of chemicals under TSCA.
Audience: TSCA management and technical staff.
Limitations and Uncertainties:
• Exposure values are qualitatively assigned (none, low,
medium, or high ratings) based on perceived probability of
release. Numbers of exposed persons is qualitatively
estimated (high, medium, low, or none) by the population
surrounding production sites or industrial use sites.
Scores for toxicity are based on a range of 0 to 10, for
oncogenicity, genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, and
bioconcentration. Final ranking is based on professional
judgment on level of hazard.
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity: 0-10 score based on each endpoint:
oncogenicity, genotoxicity and developmental
toxicity.
Exposure: Based on estimated population in areas
surrounding production and industrial use
sites; rated high, medium, low and none.
Ecological: Bioconcentration is ranked 0 - 10 based on
Bioconcentration Factor (BCF).
Economics: None
Environmental None
Justice:
Other (specify): Chemicals are eliminated from consideration
based on existing regulations or assessments,
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: X Yes No
Exposure: _X_ Yes No
Ecological: X Yes No
246
-------
Economics: Yes X No
Environmental Yes X No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes _X_ No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Media Evaluated:
X Air Soil Mult i-Media
X Surface Water X Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Area considered relative to population size surrounding
production and industrial use facilities.
Output:
Map X Relative Ranking
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: published in a peer reviewed
j ournal)
Other (describe:
Computer Requirements:
Hardware: None
Software: None
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
None.
247
-------
REFERENCES
None.
248
-------
12.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS, QUESTIONNAIRE
AND APPROVAL
A
AE
AFS-AIRS
AI
AIRS
AML
ARA
ATSDR
BCFs
BG
CAA
CDC
CERCLA
CPF
CRAVE
DI
DOS
DV
E-MAP
ECAO
ED10
ED
EF
EJ
EMSL-LV
EPCRA
ERI
ESD
GEMS
GIS
GW
HAP
HEAST
HEM-2
Air
Total Area Exposed
Airs Facility Subsystem of the Aerometric
Information Retrieval System
Area of Impact
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
ARCInfo Macro Language
Assistant Regional Administrator
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Bioconcentration Factors
Block Group
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (also referred to as Superfund)
Cancer Potency Factor
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor
Degree of Impact
Disk Operating System
Degree of Vulnerability
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.
S. EPA
Effective dose 10
Enumeration District (U.S. Bureau of Census)
Exposure Factor
Environmental justice
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las
Vegas
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
Ecological Risk Index
Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Graphical exposure modeling system
Geographic Information System
Groundwater
Hazardous air pollutant
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Human Exposure Model
249
-------
HRI
HRS
HSDB
HWDMS
IDEA
IARC
IEMP
IRIS
ISC
ISCLT
LEAP
LOAEL
LOG
LOEC
LOELs
MATC
MEG
ME I
MMRS
MMSOILS
MSA
NEDS
NESHAPS
NIEHS
NJDEP
NJDOH
NJDOT
NOAEL
NOEC
NPDES
NPL
OAR
OAQPS
OE
OERR
0PM
OPPTS
ORD
OSW
OW
Health Risk Index
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous Substances Database
Hazardous Waste Data Management System
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Integrated Environmental Modeling Program
Integrated Risk Information System
Industrial Source Complex
Industrial Source Complex Long Term
Lethal concentration 50
Lethal dose 50
Lead Education and Abatement Program in Region V
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
Level of Concern
Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
Lowest Observed Effect Levels
Maximum Allowable Toxic Concentration
Megabyte
Maximally Exposed Individual
Multi-media Ranking System
RCRA Model for Multi-media Contaminant Fate,
Transport and Exposure Model
Metropolitan Statistical Area
National Emissions Data System
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Department of Health
New Jersey Department of Transportation
No Observed Adverse Effect Level
No Observed Effect Concentration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priority List
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Enforcement
Office of Emergency Response and Remediation
Office of Policy and Management
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Water
250
-------
PC
PCS
PE
PECT
PL
RA
RAM
RBES
RCRA
RETA
RfC
RfD
RPM
RQ
RTECS
RTP
RTS
S
SARA
SAB
SCRS
SIC
SOCMI
SQL
STF-1A
STF-3A
SW
TIGER
TIGRIS
TLV
TPQ
TRI
TRIS
TSCA
TSDFs
UBK
UCR
WOE
Population density in the community
Permit Compliance System
Population density in exposed area
Population estimation and characterization tool
Public Law
Release Adjustment
Random access memory
Risk-Based Enforcement Strategy
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Region IV Environmental Targeting System
Reference Concentration for inhalation
Reference Dose for ingestion
Remedial Project Manager
Reportable Quantity
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Risk Targeting System
Soil
Superfund Amendement and Reauthorization Act of
1986
Science Advisory Board
Source Category Ranking System
Standard Industrial Code
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Standard Query Language
Standard Tape File 1A (CENSUS data)
Standard Tape File 3A (CENSUS data)
Surface Water
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing
Toxic Release Inventory Geographic Risk Analysis
System
Threshold Limit Value
Threshold Planning Quantity
Toxic Release Inventory
Toxic Release Inventory System
Toxic Substances Control Act
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Uptake Biokinetic Lead Model
Unit Cancer Risk value
Weight of Evidence
251
-------
252
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE
Acronym:
Sponsoring Agency:
Contact Person:
Summary (brief description including conclusions and components
e.g., toxicity, exposure, economics, ecological risk,
environmental justice and other):
DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS
Intended System Use (be specific):
Use:
Audience:
Limitations and Uncertainties:
Quantitative Algorithms:
Toxicity:
Exposure:
Ecological:
Economics:
Environmental
Justice:
253
-------
Other (specify):
Qualitative Data Analysis:
Toxicity: Yes ' No
Exposure: Yes No
Ecological: Yes No
Economics: Yes No
Environmental . Yes No
Justice:
Other (specify) : Yes No
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
/
Media Evaluated:
Air Soil Mult i-Media
Surface Water Ground Water Population Only
Geographic Coverage Area (State, Region-wide, etc.):
Output:
Map Relative Ranking
Other (specify
Type of Peer Review:
None
Internal region-specific
Internal Headquarters-specific
Internal Agency-wide
Science Advisory Board
External (describe: published in a peer reviewed
j ournal)
Other (describe:
Computer Requirements:
Hardware:
254
-------
Software:
Historical Background (please provide information on how this
system was developed and whether it replaces any previous
indexing systems):
References:
Supplemental information:
255
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |