United States Region 5 Illinois, Indiana,
Environmental Protection Office of Public Affairs Michigan, Minnesota,
Agency 230 South Dearborn Street Ohio. Wisconsin
Chicago, Illinois 60604
905R91103
&EPA FACT
SHEET
REGION 5 COMPARATIVE
RISK PROJECT
-," \Jt I L. L- I MAY, 1991 905/91/022
Background
EPA Region 5 program managers compared and
ranked 26 environmental problems based upon
their estimated relative risk to public
health and the environment. This comparative
risk project evolved from a 1987 EPA
Headquarters report, "Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems". All ten EPA regions have
completed similar projects. By evaluating
environmental problems according to relative
\{ risks, U.S. EPA can better allocate its
limited resources to reduce the most
significant of those risks. EPA can also
evaluate whether current laws adequately
address the most significant environmental
problems and whether those laws
can be used more effectively and creatively
to reduce risks.
Q. How was the project conducted?
A. Current risks of the 26 problems were
determined and ranked relative to one another
given existing regulations and policies. To
assess and compare relative health risks, the
study considered: (1) the cancer and non-
cancer effects of toxic substances and other
hazards (i.e., exposure to ultraviolet
radiation) and (2) the number of people
exposed to these substances. Ecological
' risks were based on the severity of effects
caused by these toxic substances or other
hazards on wildlife, the size of the affected
area, and ecosystem recovery time. For some
problems, such as global warming,
stratospheric ozone depletion and accidental
chemical releases, analyses were based upon
projected rather than current risks. Each
problem was placed into one of four risk
categories: high, medium-high, medium-low
and low. However, problems were hot ranked
within each of these categories.
-------
,-5 * * /
KOIH
> ' '.-'- -^r-\
-, ', -T CO
'; nc .--. '/
M "j*^ ), . '.-'. '."!
EC A
, ..!
010
I
IBM
-------
REGION 5 COMPARATIVE RISK RANKINGS
Ecological Risk Ranking
Human Health Risk Ranking
HIGH
Accidental Chemical Releases*
CO2 and Global Warming*
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Municipal Wastewater Discharges
Non-point Source Discharges
to Surface Waters
Pesticides
Physical Degradation of
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Physical Degradation of Water
& Wetlands Habitat
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion*
MEDIUM HIGH
Abandoned/Superfund Sites
Industrial Wastewater Discharges
Ozone & Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur & Nitrogen Oxides
MEDIUM LOW
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Storage Tanks
LOW
Industrial Solid Waste Sites
Municipal Solid Waste Sites
Possible Risks Not Assessed:
Aggregated Ground-Water
Airborne Lead
Lead
Particulate Matter
Radiation other than Radon
No Known Impacts:
Aggregated Drinking Water
Indoor Air Pollutants
Indoor Radon
PCBs Worker Exposure & TSCA
'Ranking reflects risk of future impacts.
**Pre-manufacture Controls portion of this problem area is not ranked.
HIGH
Accidental Chemical Releases*
Indoor Air Pollutants
Indoor Radon
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
MEDIUM HIGH
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Lead
Non-point Source Discharges
Ozone & Carbon Monoxide
Pesticides
Radiation other than Radon
Sulfur & Nitrogen Oxides
MEDIUM LOW
Abandoned/Superfund Sites
Aggregated Drinking Water
Aggregated Ground-Water
Airborne Lead
Industrial Solid Waste Sites
Industrial Wastewater Discharges
Municipal Wastewater Discharges
Particulate Matter
PCB Worker Exposure - TSCA **
Storage Tanks
LOW
Municipal Solid Waste Sites
Physical Degradation of
Terrestrial Ecosystems
RCRA Hazardous Waste
No Known Impacts:
Physical Degradation of Water & Wetlands
Habitat
-------
1 "15 -"-' '*
s tne results? ~ ,,
L--o. v fc :£i-- V" \ /TV-'
A. The problems ranted are listed in the table.:
Adequate°data~did;)not always exists to fully evaluate-3
each problem area. Because the risk assessments:vjereq
semi-quantititive,i the rankings are accurate to one
risk group. Therefore, a medium-high,risk problem -jEri
could~be Iranked as high or medium-low in the "future if
more data were to become available. ,: " . _., ; <?
~ - , ~, ' r~
The^Highest human health risks were found to be /from
indoor air "pollutants, indoor radon, stratospheric "
6>zone'depletion, and accidental chemical ^releases.
Medium-high human health risks included, .hazardous/toxic
air pollutants; other air pollutants such as> ozone and
sulfur and nitrogen oxides; lead;pesticides; and non-
point water pollution from agriculture and air
pollutants.
As shown in the table, one-half (13) of the problem
areas evaluated were found to have high or medium-high
risks and included problems such as physical , , -.
degradation of terrestrial and aquatic
habitats/ecosystems, stratospheric ozone depletion and
global warming.
Q. Why did the report find many high ecological risks?
A. Ecosystems are very sensitive to chemical and
physical damage and, once damaged, take a long time to
recover. In addition, more information on human health
risks has been available and many environmental laws
were drafted primarily to protect human health. EPA,
accordingly, has devoted a greater portion of its
resources to reducing human health risks than to
reducing ecological risks. As a result of the
comparative risk project, EPA recognized this disparity
and will increase its efforts to protect critical
ecosystems. -
EPA is only one of many federal and state agencies
charged with environmental protection. However, EPA's
clear mandate is environmental preservation. The
results of this project emphasizes EPA's need to work
with others in protecting and preserving ecosystems.
Q. How does Region 5'a project compare to other
Comparative Risk Projects?
A. Because each EPA regional project assessed risks
from different geographical areas, risk rankings of
environmental problems varied. However, nationwide,
several problems consistently ranked as high or medium
high human health risks: outdoor air pollutants,
-------
indoor radon and agricultural pesticides. Ecological^
risks consistently ranked high were: physical
degradation of both terrestrial and aquatic .-.
ecosystems/habitats, the buildup of carbon dioxide «»
emissions and global warming, non-point source water
pollution and stratospheric ozone depletion. ,. ; .,
/-','> , " ~
Nationally, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) 1990 >
report, "Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection", stated that the highest
human health risks were from outdoor and indoor air
pollution, agricultural pesticides and stratospheric,-
ozone depletion. Highest ranked .ecological risks were
global warming (climate change), stratospheric ozone
-depletion and habitat destruction, (ecosystem
alteration).
s
Q. How does Region 5's risk ranking compare to public
opinion?
A. Opinion polls show that the public perceives
hazardous waste sites and local landfills as the
nation's most significant environmental problems. Due
to the smaller number of individuals or wildlife
exposed and the often localized nature of the problem
however, this report ranked those problems fairly low.
However, a low risk problem does not imply that persons
or wildlife are not at risk and that EPA is not
committed to removing that risk. EPA will continue to
allocate resources to hazardous waste site cleanups and
ensuring proper waste management.
Q. How will the results be used?
A. Region 5 has already begun to use the study results
in developing a three-year strategic plan to reduce the
highest human health and ecological risks. For
example, programs have been proposed to reduce risks
from outdoor and indoor air pollution, global warming,
stratospheric ozone depletion, lead contamination,
pesticides and accidental chemical releases. Restoring
the Great Lakes and protecting aguatic and terrestrial
ecosystems are major components of these plans. Region
5 will increase environmental law enforcement,
pollution prevention programs, public outreach and
education programs to achieve these goals. Finally,
Region 5 will improve environmental data collection to
better assess risks and to track the success of these
Regional risk reduction programs.
Q. How can I get more information? H
A. The following two free documents are available:
Region 5's "A Risk Analysis of 26 Environmental
-------
Problems" and the Science Advisory Board's "Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection". To request the documents,
or for more information on Region 5's use of risk
assessment in setting environmental priorities, contact
the Office of Public Affairs, toll-free at (800) 621-
8431 (MN, WI, IN, MI, OH) or (800) 572-2515 (IL only)
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (central time zone).
You may also write to:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Public Affairs
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
ATTN: Comparative Risk Project
------- |