A cooperative agreement
between the
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances
of the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
and the
Institute of Science
and Public Affairs
at the
Florida State University
C APRM II March 2003
Chemical And Pesticide Results Measures
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AU6 7 2003
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Distribution of Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures Report
Stephen
Assistant]
Distribution
nistrator
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) has a firm and
expanding commitment to the development and use of environmental indicators. Such indicators
offer EPA, the states, and our various stakeholders an opportunity to evaluate our progress in
delivering measurable and meaningful environmental results to the American people. Moreover,
these measures show us where we need to focus increased attention and resources to combat
either emerging issues, or where our traditional approaches to longstanding issues should be re-
thought.
In that light, I am delighted to announce the availability of a report: Chemical and
Pesticides Results Measures 11 (CAPRMII) which OPPTS has worked to develop with the
Florida State University and a variety of our state and tribal partners, and a number of additional
stakeholders. We have made printed copies of the Report available to not only those who
participated directly in the development of the Report but also to other Offices and EPA Regions.
Despite the high cost of printing and distributing large numbers of bound copies of color reports,
EPA has approximately 900 copies available for initial distribution.
Also, the Institute of Science and Public Affairs at the Florida State University will be
making CAPRM n along with its predecessor CAPRM materials available on the Internet at:
http://www. pepps.fsu.edu.
Please feel free to contact either Sarah Campney at Florida State University at (850) 644-
1733 or Dr. Ronald T. McHugh of OPPTS at (202) 564-0339 if you have any questions.
-------
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDES
RESULTS MEASURES II
The Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures (CAPRM) project is a
cooperative agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS) and the Program for Environmental Policy and Planning
Systems (PEPPS) of the Institute of Science and Public Affairs of
The Florida State University
PROJECT STAFF
Project Director
Gilbert T. Bergquist Jr., Ph.D.
Project Manager
Tiffany Taylor
David Blais
Suzanne Clarke
Tina Dealer
Linda Elbert
Nicole Fernandez
Jennifer Fitzgerald
Joe McGuire
Project Staff
Kristin Mixell
Kathleen Pescatore
Capehart Perkins
Franklin Price
Yolanda Reynolds
Jessica Wilkerson
EPA Project Managers
Carol Terris
Pam Wilkes
Glenn Williams
MARCH 2003
-------
The indicators in CAPRM and CAPRM II should be viewed as a tool for the collective use of
states, tribes, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector for their
joint and separate purposes. While the system was developed in cooperation with the EPA, the
final selection of indicators and their presentation is solely the result of decisions made by the
CAPRM Technical Advisory Workgroup and the professional staff of PEPPS. While the EPA
might find parts of the systems useful for their purposes, the CAPRM and CAPRM II indicator
systems were not specifically developed for the agency and should not be construed as carrying
any official EPA endorsement. The indicators in CAPRM and CAPRM II are not subject to the
Data Quality Guidelines.
This document and all other CAPRM and CAPRM II materials can be
viewed on the Internet at:
http://www.pepps.fsu.edu./
http://www.pepps.fsu.edu./CAPRM/index.html
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements x
Technical Advisory Workgroup Members xi
Introduction xiii
Sustainability: The Underlying Theme 1
Environmental Issues 5
Environmental Issues List 6
Environmental Issue 1: Human Health 7
Issue Overview 10
Sub-Issue: Pathologies and Direct Health Impacts
Pathologies Caused by Chemical or Pesticide Exposure 12
Cervical Cancer Incidence and Mortality 13
Endometria! Cancer Incidence and Mortality 15
Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality 17
Ovarian Cancer Incidence and Mortality 20
Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality 22
Thyroid Cancer Incidence and Mortality 24
Testicular Cancer Incidence and Mortality 26
Incidence of Asthma 28
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Poisonings due to Pesticide Exposure 30
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Poisonings due to Chemical Exposure 32
Occupational Incidence of Respiratory Conditions due to Toxic Agents 34
Occupational Incidence of Poisoning 36
Number of Occupational Chemical and Pesticide-Related Injuries and Illnesses 38
Sub-Issue: Health Risk
Chronic Human Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases 40
Acute Human Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases 43
Chronic Human Health Risk Index for Releases of Carcinogenic Chemicals 45
Chronic Human Health Risk Index for Releases of Developmental Toxins 48
Sub-Issue: Body Burden
Body Burden of Toxic Substances 51
Metal Levels in People Ages 6 and Older 52
Blood Lead Levels in Peoples Ages 6 and Older 55
Blood Mercury Levels in Women of Childbearing Age 57
Levels of Organophosphate Pesticide Metabolites in People Ages 6-59 Years 58
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Levels of Phthalate Metabolites in People Ages 6 and Older 60
Occupational Lead Exposure 61
Sub-Issue: Public Health
Reported Cases of Vector-Borne Diseases 63
Sub-Issue: Subsistence Diet
Number of Fish and Wildlife Advisories 65
Environmental Issue 2: Ecological Health 67
Issue Overview 70
Sub-Issue Flora and Fauna Impacts
Chronic and Acute Ecological Health Risk from Toxic Releases 72
Number of Terrestrial and Aquatic Incidents and Associated Mortalities from the
15 Pesticides Causing the Most Wildlife Mortalities 74
Sub-Issue: Major Ecosystems
Great Lakes Ecosystem
Great Lakes Ecosystem 76
External Anomalies in Brown Bullhead Fish from the Great Lakes 77
PCB Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes 78
DDE Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes 79
Mirex Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes 80
Dieldrin Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes 81
Hexachloroben/ene Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes 82
Concentrations of Total DDE in Bald Eagle Eggs from the Great Lakes 83
Concentrations of Total PCBs in Bald Eagle Eggs from the Great Lakes 84
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs from the Great Lakes 85
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 86
PAH Concentrations in Offshore Waters of the Great Lakes 87
Dieldrin Concentrations in Offshore Waters of the Great Lakes 88
Concentrations of Atrazine in Lake Michigan 89
Concentrations of PCBs in Lake Michigan 90
Concentrations of Mercury in Lake Michigan 92
Concentrations of Trans-Nonachlor in Lake Michigan 94
Arsenic Loadings to the Great Lakes 95
Lead Loadings to the Great Lakes 97
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 99
Bald Eagle Population Count in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 100
Contaminants in Maryland Oyster Tissue 101
Kepone in Finfish Tissue in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 103
Tributyltin Concentration Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 104
Copper Concentration Levels in the Sediments of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 106
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
IV
-------
Concentrations of Lead and Copper in Precipitation of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 107
Bcnzo|aIpyrene Concentration in the Sediments of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem 108
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern 110
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants in the
Cheseapeake Bay Ecosystem 112
Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants from Federal Facilities
in the Chesepeake Bay Region 113
Cropland Acres Under Integrated Pest Management in the Chesepeake Bay Ecosystem 114
Pesticide Container Recycling Programs in the Chesepeake Bay Ecosystem 116
Pesticide Collection and Disposal Programs in the Chesepeake Bay Ecosystem 117
Mid-Atlantic Ecosystem
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA) 118
PCB Levels in Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Blue Crabs 1 19
Concentrations of PCBs in Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Sediments 120
Other Ecosystem Indicator Development Projects
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment Program (MAHA) 121
Western Pilot Study 122
Sun Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River-Delta Ecosystem 123
Estuarine and Great Lakes Program 124
National Coastal Assessment (Coastal 2000) 125
Environmental Issue 3: Chemical and Pesticide Safety and Use 127
Issue Overview 129
Sub-Issue: Toxicity of the Ambient Environment
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste 131
HPV Challenge Program 134
Average Toxicity of Pesticide Active Ingredient Applied per Acre 135
Pesticide Detections in Ground and Surface Water 136
National Emissions of Air Toxics 138
Sub-Issue: Safer Chemicals and Pesticides
Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with Biopesticides 139
Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with Reduced Risk Pesticides 140
Sale of Dry Cleaning Equipment Using Safer Chemicals 141
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Field Crops by Pesticide Product Signal Word 143
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by Pesticide Product Signal Word 145
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fruits by Pesticide Product Signal Word 147
Sub-Issue: Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals
* Chemical Bioaccumulation in Mussel Tissue 149
Toxicity Index for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 151
PCBs and Persistent Pesticide Detections in Fish and Bed Sediment 154
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Sub-Issue: Alternative Farming Systems
Number of Certified Organic Farmland Acres 156
Number of Acres in Integrated Pest Management 157
Environmental Issue 4: Food Safety 159
Issue Overview 161
Sub-Issue: Pesticide Residues
Percent of Foods Sampled with Detectable Pesticide Residues 164
Percent of Foods Sampled with Pesticide Residues that Violated or were Presumed to
Violate Tolerances 165
Sub-Issue: Industrial Chemical Residues
Percent of Foods Sampled with Detectable Industrial Chemical Residues 167
Sub-Issue: Agricultural Pesticide Use
U.S. Annual Volume of Pesticide Usage by Type of Active Ingredient 168
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Field Crops by Type of Active Ingredient 169
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by Type of Active Ingredient 171
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fmits by Type of Active Ingredient 173
Sub-Issue: Biotechnology
Percent of Harvested Acres where Fanner Reported Use of a Genetically
Modified Variety 175
Sub-Issue: Import/Export - International Food Safety
Percent of Imported Foods Sampled with Detectable and Violative Pesticide Residues 177
Environmental Issue 5: Product Safety 179
Issue Overview 181
Sub-Issue: Chemical and Pesticide Product Misuse
Number of Human Poison Exposure Cases, By Medical Outcome, due to
Chemical Misuse 184
Number of Human Poison Exposure Cases, By Medical Outcome, due to
Pesticide Misuse 185
Sub-Issue: Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use
Annual Pesticides Usage by Resedential Sectors and by Pesticide Type 186
Environmental Issue 6: Transboundary Movement of Chemicals and Pesticides 189
Issues Overview 191
Sub-Issue: Transboundary Management of Toxics
Volume of Exports of Hazardous Waste from the U.S., by Treatment Method and
Receiving Country 194
Sub-Issue: Environmental Transport of Chemicals and Pesticides
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II ' ''
-------
Mercury Deposition in the Florida Everglades 196
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals and Pesticides into the Great Lakes 198
Sub-Issue: International Trade in Toxic Chemicals and Pesticides
* Ha/ardous Pesticides Exports from the U.S 200
U.S. Imports and Exports of Persistent Organic Pollutants 201
Special Populations 203
Special Populations Issue Lisl 204
Special Population Issue 1: Children 205
Issue Overview 207
Sub-Issue: Pathologies and Direct Health Impacts
Pathologies in Children Caused by Chemical or Pesticide Exposure 209
Incidence of Asthma in Children 210
Incidence and Mortality of Childhood Cancers 212
Incidence of Birth Detects 215
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Child Poisonings due to Pesticide Exposure 219
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Child Poisonings due to Chemical Exposure 221
Sub-Issue: Health Risk
Children's Chronic Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases 223
* Children's Acute Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases 226
Pesticide Residue Levels of Carcinogenic and Cholinesterase Inhibiting Neurotoxic
Pesticides on Foods Commonly Eaten by Children 228
Sub-Issue: Body Burden
Body Burden of Toxic Substances in Children 230
Blood Lead Levels in Children 232
Blood Mercury Levels in Children 234
Special Population Issue 2: Environmental Justice 235
Issue Overview 237
Sub-Issue: Pathologies and Direct Health Impacts
Incidence of Asthma by Race 247
Sub-Issue: Health Risk
Comparative Chronic Health Risk Index for Toxic Releases by Race and Income 249
Sub-Issue: Body Burden
Body Burden of Toxic Substances by Race and Income 251
Blood Lead Levels in People Ages 1 and Older by Race 253
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Special Population Issue 3: Tribes 255
Issue Overview 257
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) 264
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste on Tribal Lands 266
Cancer Incidence by Race 269
Human Health Risk for Releases and Managed Waste on and oft Tribal Reservations 271
Gila River Indian Community Pesticide Indicators 274
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Environmental Quality Indicators 275
Number of Active and Closed Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands 277
Number of Confirmed Releases from Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands 279
Number of Emergency Responses from Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands 281
Number of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Initiated and Completed on Tribal Lands .... 283
Open Dump Sites on Tribal Lands 285
Cross-Program Initiatives 287
Cross-Program Initiative Issues List 288
Cross-Program Initiative Issue 1: Product Stewardship 289
Issue Overview 291
Industry Disposal of Pesticide Containers 292
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Design for the
Environment Program 293
Volume of Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Recovered by Clean Sweeps Programs 294
Cross-Program Initiative Issue 2: Pollution Prevention 297
Issue Overview 299
Sub-Issue: Waste
RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated, by Volume and Type 301
RCRA Hazardous Waste Managed, by Volume and Method of Management 303
Sub-Issue: Source Reduction
TRI Pollution Prevention Measures 305
Northeast Waste Management Officials" Association (NEWMOA)
Pollution Prevention Metrics Menu 308
Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Generated as Non-Product Output in New Jersey 309
Trends in Use of Toxic Chemicals in Massachusetts After Institution of the
Toxic Use Reduction Act 310
Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxin Use in Massachusetts 312
Responsible Care Measures 313
Dow Chemical Company's Efforts as an Example of Pollution Prevention 315
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
VIII
-------
r« Duponi Chemical Company's Efforts as an Example of Pollution Prevention 317
Dry Cleaning Industry Perchloroethylene Decline 319
ib-Issue: Eco-Efficiency
Toxicity of Releases and Managed Waste per Dollar of Economic Output Index 321
Toxicity per Pound Index for Releases and Managed Waste 324
Volume of RCRA Ha/ardous Waste Generated per Dollar of U.S.
Gross Domestic Product ( GDP) 327
IX
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Acknowledgements
The Program tor Environmental Policy and Planning Systems (PEPPS) of the Institute of Science of Public Affairs at
The Florida Slate University extends a special thanks to Carol Terris, Glenn Williams, and Pain Wilkes of the OPPTS
Senior Budget Office for their unfaltering support of CAPRM II as each served as a Project Manager during the course
of this project.
The project has always received outstanding support from the highest levels of OPPTS management. Both Susan
Wayland and Stephen Johnson, from their position of Assistant Administrator, provided the level and quality of continu-
ing leadership and support that makes success possible. Their involvement ensured adequate resources and maintained a
high level of visibility, contributing heavily to the success of the project.
Also worthy ot" special recognition for the level of support he has provided this project is Rich Englerof the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Thanks also goes to the Environmental Council of the States and its Executive Director. Steve Brown, for allowing us
access to their fine, well-located meeting facilities. Carolyn Sistare of the ECOS staff was invaluable in coordinating all
of our meetings and assisting us with all of the details.
The individuals listed below provided data or technical assistance with the development of the indicators. Their assis-
tance improved the overall quality and content of CAPRM II. PEPPS staff would like to thank them for their valuable
contributions.
Bruce Barkley, Senior Budge Office. OPPTS
Paul Bertram. EPA Region .*>
Edward Brandt. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA
Mike Burns. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, OPPTS, EPA
Kelly Eisenman, Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA
Barry Hill. Office of Environmental Justice, OECA. HPA
Taimi Hoag. Little Traverse Bay Bands
Ann Goode, National Academy of Public Administration
Lisa Cover, National Tribal Environmental Council
Richard Gragg, Center for Environmental Equity and Justice, Florida A&M University
Otto Gutenson. Office of Water, HPA
Catherine Joseph, Office of Science Policy and Coordination, OPPTS, EPA
Ed Liu, American Indian Environmental Office. EPA
Ron McHugh. Senior Budget Office, OPPFS. EPA
Tom O'Connor. NOAA Coastal Monitoring Branch
Jerry Pardilla, National Tribal Environmental Council
Andy Privee. Office of Science Policy and Coordination. OPPTS. EPA
Caren Rothstein. Tribal Coordinator. OPPTS. EPA
Natalie Roy. National Pollution Prevention Roundtalble
Karen Rudek. Tribal Coordinator. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA
Heather Shoven. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA
Monica Sharpe. Congenital Malformations Registry. New York State Department of Health
Nita Sylvester. Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA
Chip Weseloh. Canadian Wildlife Service-Ontario Region
Felicia Wright. Tribal Coordinator. OSWER. EPA
-------
Technical Advisory Workgroup Members
Serving On CAPRM II
STATE
Pat Curran
Manager, Health Ha/ards Control Unit
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Division of Public Health
Dave Fredrickxim
Director of Investigation and Compliance
Agricultural Resource Management Division
Wl Dept of" Agriculture. Trade & Consumer Protection
Ken Zarker
Manager. Strategic Partnerships Program
Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
PRIVATE
David P. Clarke
Senior Policy Advisor
American Chemistry Council
Ray McAllister
Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs
Crop- Life America
John I.. O'Donoghue, V.M.D, Ph.D.
Director. Health and Environmental Laboratories
Kastman Kodak Company
Stephen Roxe
Manager. Environmental Health and Safety Knowledge
The Dow Chemical Company
ACADEMIC
Manfred Wont/, Ph.D.
Visiting Professor.
North Carolina State University
TRIBAL
Margaret Cook
Department of Environmental Quality
Gila River Indian Community
Donelin
Prairie Band Potavvatomi Nation
Department of Planning and Environmental Protection
Nancy John
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma,
XI
-------
John Persell
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Don Wedll
Mille Lacs Band of the Ojibwe
NON-PROFIT
Thomas E. Natan, Jr.
Research Director
National Environmental Trust
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dave Kling
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
U.S. EPA
Kathleen Knox
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. EPA
Joe Merenda
Office of Science Policy and Coordination
U.S. EPA
Mary Setnicar
Region 5
U.S. EPA
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDES
RESULTS MEASURES
(CAPRM)
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures (CAPRM) project is a cooperative agreement between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and the Program
for Environmental Policy and Planning Systems (PEPPS) of the Institute of Science and Public Affairs (ISPA) of Florida
State University. The purpose of this agreement is to develop a national set of chemical, pesticide and pollution prevention
indicators that can be used by states, tribes, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector, as well as the EPA .to
describe and understand environmental trends and conditions concerning chemical and pesticide issues.
During the first year of the project, an external workgroup of representatives from state government, the private sector.
and nonprofit organizations, with the support of CAPRM project staff and an internal OPPTS workgroup, identified
strategic issues relating to chemicals and pesticides and provided oversight of the development of 74 indicators capable
of measuring changes in environmental results associated with those issues. Meeting in February. June, and September
of 2000, the workgroup undertook the following tasks:
The identification of a structure of strategic issues that reflect the major concerns that OPPTS will face
over the next 20 years;.
The elaboration of each of these strategic issues into a suite of sub-issues that collectively define their
major components;
The preliminary identification of the types of indicators that should be used to measure each of the
sub-issues;
The provision of guidance to staff concerning available data sources capable of supporting indicators;
The recommendation of a final set of environmental indicators; and
The coordination of the CAPRM process with other relevant indicator efforts.
All of this work resulted in the publication of a document entitled CAPRM: Chemical and Pesticide Results
Measures in February of 2001.
In 2001, the project was extended to build upon the work contained in the initial document. The goals of the second
phase of the project were to:
Review, revise, and expand the issue structure;
Revise and update indicators from the initial set to improve their utility and to include new data points;
Focus additional indicator development attention on several important existing areas that require more
support, to include pollution prevention, product stewardship, human health, and childrens health;
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II ««"<«» "««
-------
Develop exploratory indicators for use by Indian tribes; and to
Develop an exploratory set of environmental justice indicators to measure, at the national level, any
differential impacts relating to chemicals and pesticides as they affect the health of populations divided by
race and income.
This document represents the results of this effort. The issue structure has been revised and expanded, and the
number of indicators has increased from 74 to almost 150.
The indicators in CAPRM should be viewed as a tool for the collective use of states, tribes, local governments.
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector for their joint and separate purposes. While the system was
developed in cooperation with the EPA. the final selection of indicators and their presentation is solely the result of
decisions made by the workgroup and the professional staff of PEPPS. While the EPA may find parts of the system
useful, the CAPRM indicator system was not specifically developed for the agency and should not be construed as
carrying any official EPA endorsement. The indicators in this document are not subject to EPA's Data Quality
Guidelines.
THE CONTEXT FOR THE CHEMICAL AND
PESTICIDES RESULTS MEASURES
Over the past ten years, the growth in the use of indicators at both the federal and the state level has been significant. In
1990, only a few states were using indicators in any direct manner and only two Florida and North Carolina had
made any explicit attempt to systematically develop and document a comprehensive environmental indicator system.
The EPA was only in the beginning stages of building indicator systems. In 2001. the situation is dramatically different.
Now almost all states have at least begun to develop indicator systems or closely related environmental reporting documents.
Guided by the outstanding community-based programs in Seattle, Washington, and Jacksonville, Florida, hundreds of
communities all over the nation are in the process of developing indicator systems. At the federal level, there are a
number of inter-agency and intra-agency groups working to develop indicator systems and, perhaps more importantly,
begin the process of redesigning federal environmental monitoring systems. A driving force has been the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) which has required all federal agencies to prepare strategic plans that are driven
by both mission-based and program performance metrics. The EPA Office of Water has developed a set of national
water indicators and built a system for measuring watershed environmental health called the Index of Water Indicators.
The EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), in cooperation with PEPPS. conducted the National Air and Radiation
Indicators Project (NARIP), a stakeholder-driven process that produced 83 national level indicators reflecting the major
environmental concerns of OAR. The EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), with the assistance
of PEPPS. is presently supporting the development of Waste Indicators for the Environment (WISE), a project very
similar to CAPRM designed to assist OSWHR stakeholders in developing a set of indicators capable of measuring their
key activities. The EPA-led Chesapeake Bay Program and Great Lakes Program are outstanding examples of
comprehensive indicator-driven ecosystem management programs. Developing ecosystems programs such as the Mid-
Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA), the Western Pilot Study.
and the Esluarine and Great Lakes Program demonstrate the potential for high quality indicator systems in a variety of
ecosystems and geographic areas. The most recent indicator-based project conducted by EPA is the development of a
State of the Environment Report, an effort that could broad and lasting effects on agency planing and management
activities.
The timing for CAPRM is excellent. At the national level, the Governmental Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
requires all federal agencies to cast their budgets within goal-driven and indicator-supported strategic planning processes.
For the EPA. strong environmental indicators arc critically important to demonstrate to Congress progress toward its
mission-oriented goals. Agencies with inadequate measurement systems are disadvantaged when program efficacy
and goals achievement must be documented for Congress. The development of the EPA Strategic Plan, the
XV
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
agency's response to GPRA, demands strong and comprehensive measurement inputs. As GPRA becomes more
closely associated with budget success, agency measurement systems will become more important.
Indicators have become an important part of the federal-state relationship in environmental matters. The Core
Measures process is a cooperative attempt by the EPA and the states to develop common terminology and measures
to support the foundation of their program and funding relationship. The most substantial potential for indicator
development lies with the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). Under NEPPS, the
measurement and achievement of results, rather than the completion of specified program activities, will become
the foundation of the EPA-states relationship.
DOCUMENT STRUCTURE AND FORMAT
The fundamental structure of CAPRM was established by an iterative process involving the external workgroup
and an internal EPA indicator workgroup to identify the key strategic issues that the OPPTS will face over the next
20 years. These major issues were then further examined to identify the principal dimensions or components of
each strategic issue. This resulted in the identification of an additional 30 sub-issues. This structure of issues and
sub-issues became the framework around which indicator development proceeded. CAPRM I reflects that
framework in its organization.
All of this activity demonstrates a clear convergence of the measurement of environmental conditions with performance-
based management, a trend that is likely to continue.
In CAPRM I attention was focused on seven environmental issues:
Globalization of Environmental Effects,
Sustainability,
Food,
Waste,
Products,
Human Health, and
Ecological Health.
In CAPRM II the issue structure was expanded and refined to accommodate the revised objectives of the project.
Three categories of issues were created. First, a group of basic environmental issues relating to chemicals and
pesticides was identified. These issues are:
Human Health,
Ecological Health,
Chemical and Pesticide Safety and Use,
Food Safety,
Product Safety, and
Transboundary Movement of Chemicals and Pesticides.
Additionally, three issues associated with special populations were identified for which there are special concerns
with regard to their risk from exposure to chemicals and pesticides:
Children,
Environmental Justice (ethnic groups and persons of low income).
Tribes.
Finally, there are two cross-cutting policy issues that have meaning for all of the other issues that help define how
we are doing in reducing the impacts of all of our pollution and waste related activities:
* Product Stewardship, and
Pollution Prevention.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
XVI
-------
Each of the issues is presented in turn. Each issue section has a text introduction that describes the context for the
issue, justifies its importance, and provides essential background information. This summary includes information
for the general issue as well as for each of the sub-issues.
Following the introduction, individual indicators are presented and organi/ed by sub-issue. Each individual
indicator page has a header that:
Identifies the strategic issue;
Identifies the sub-issue;
Identifies the specific indicator:
* Characterizes the indicator with regard to the Pressure-State-Effects-Response model and the Hierarchy of
Indicators (to be explained later within this Introduction); and
Classifies the indicator with regard to data availability.
Following the header is/are:
A brief discussion that identifies why the indicator is of importance;
A data display, when available;
A bulleted summary of data trends;
Relevant notes about the data display:
A discussion of the major limitations and characteristics of the data; and
The references used to describe the indicator issue and sources from which the data were obtained.
The following page is a sample indicator sheet, with detailed item descriptions.
XVH
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ISSUE TITLE
ISSUE SUB-TITLE
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Indicator Key
In this system, the shaded box identifies our assessment of how data exist but cannot be provided due to inordinate cost, analytical
the indicator should be characterized.
WHAT TYI-K OK DAT\ ARK \VK < OI.I.F.CTIM;?
Hierarchy of Indicators
The Hierarchy of Indicators measures the quality of indicators
employed to reflect environmental values. The ability of
individual indicators to provide information varies significantly.
High quality indicators are those directly measure the health of
humans and wildlife. Unfortunately, there are relatively' lew areas
where such definitive, end-result kinds of measures are available.
Where such quality indicators are not available, other, less direct.
measures must be used.
Data types 1 and 2 measure administrative, bureaucratic, or
activity measures and are only weakly associated or completely
unassociuled with the capacity to measure environmental quality.
Data types 3-7 are measures that reflect indicators of
environmental performance. As the indicators progress from type
3 lo type 7. the quality of environmental information increases.
Pressure-State-Response
Pressure indicators: measures of pressures on the environment
caused by human activities.
State indicators: measures of the quality of the environment and
the quality and quantity of natural resources.
Effects indicators: measures the impacts of a change in the state
of the environment.
Response indicators: measures that demonstrate what and how
much society is doing to respond to environmental changes
and issues.
TllIS PARTICU.AR INDICATOR IS A LKVKI. 3/PRKSSVKK INDICATOR.
Classification of A variability
Tvpe A: Indicators for which adequate data are available now
and can be used to support the indicator w ithoul significant cost
considerations.
Type B: Indicators which are presently feasible and for which
complexity, lime limitation or legal constraints.
Type C: Prospective indicators for which indicator quality data
do not exist and there is no reasonable prospect of development.
THIS PARTICULAR INDICATOR IS A TYPE A.
Indicator Title
Notes: This section will describe any peculiar features of the indicator.
Source: This is the source of the data that was used to construct the
indicator.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: This section describes the
methodology used in the collection of the data. It will also explain any
strcngihs and weaknesses of the data set used in the construction of the
indicator.
References
These are the materials that were used lo explain the indicator.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
XV 111
-------
INDICATOR USES, DEFINITIONS, AND
CONCEPTS USED IN CAPRM
Indicators arc useful tools for a wide variety of planning and management purposes. The capacity of individual public
organi/ations to develop and evaluate policy is greatly enhanced by the availability of good indicator systems. Indicators
can be used as a:
* Mission-based tool to support a broad evaluation of an environmental agency's performance in protecting
and managing the environment;
Means of providing information to decisionmakers:
Foundation of measurements for structuring environmental goals:
Basis for measuring environmental achievement and progress;
Basis for making strategic budget decisions:
Means of evaluating the performance of individual programs and activities;
System to monitor the health of individual ecosystems or places;
Structure around which to develop environmental education programs:
Tool for disseminating information to the public; and a
Tool to build constituent support for the agency and its programs.
The terminology associated with planning-based measurement systems is often confusing and inconsistent. A
sometimes bewildering array of terms -- indicators, environmental indicators, performance measures, mission-
based indicators, program performance measures, output measures, input measures, impact measures, effectiveness
measures, efficiency measures, benchmarks, milestones, goals, and objectives are employed in a generally
inconsistent and occasionally contradictory manner.
CAPRM uses definitions and concepts that PEPPS has employed in several of its indicator projects to develop an
overall indicator framework. Some of this framework reflects well-known and commonly used indicator
terminology and conceptual models. Other components have been developed by PEPPS in an attempt to improve
the indicator process.
Definitions
The Organi/ation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defined the basic components of indicators.
These are listed below.
Parameter: A property that is measured or observed.
Indicator: A parameter, or value derived from a parameter, which points to, provides information about,
or describes the state of a phenomenon, environment, or area with a significance extending beyond that
directly associated with a parameter value.
* Index: A set of aggregated or weighted parameters or indicators.
Environment Canada defines indicators as:
statistics or parameters thai, tracked over time, provide information on trends in the condition of a
phenomenon and have significance extending beyond that associated with the properties of the statistics
themselves. Environmental indicators are selected kev statistics which represent or summarize a significant
aspect of the state of the environment, natural resource sustainability and related human activities.
xix
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PEPPS maintains that, fundamentally, an indicator:
Must be explicitly measurable;
Must reflect an important issue,
Must be repeatedly and reliably measured over time in order to establish a trend: and
Must have significance that is broader than the measure itself; that is to say, the measure represents a
much broader issue, condition, phenomenon or circumstance than is being directly measured.
Types of Indicators
A complex environmental organization needs to measure performance at five levels:
Mission-Based: All organizations exist to fulfill some fundamental purpose. Mission-based indicators
measure how well and to what extent the organization is fulfilling that purpose. For environmental
organizations, that purpose is to protect, enhance, and/or conserve the natural environment. Thus, mission-
based indicators for such environmental organi/.ations are called environmental indicators. Environmental
indicators answer the fundamental questions of: is the environment becoming better or worse and what is
the character of changes in the environment?
Policy: Policy indicators are a specialized form of environmental indicators. While policy indicators are
expressed in environmental terms, they measure environmental outcomes within the context of and as a
function of broader social, economic, political, or cultural contexts and directly reflect the achievement of
values that are not strictly environmental in nature. Further, policy indicators tend to be reflected across
all environmental issues. Environmental justice, sustainability, and growth management are examples of
common policy areas sometimes supported by indicators.
Program Performance: Program performance indicators are focused on measuring the achievement of
program results or outcomes. Each individual program has specific objectives it seeks to accomplish.
Program performance measures document how well the program is meeting its objectives by measuring
the extent to which it is producing the desired programmatic outcomes. In some cases a program
performance indicator can be expressed as a direct or indirect environmental result; however, in most
cases the results are expressed as programmatic outcomes.
Program Activity and Efficiency: Environmental organizations need to know if their programs and
activities are functioning efficiently. Program efficiency measures document how well the program is
operating mechanically and what and how many outputs it is producing. They answer such questions as:
are programs operating efficiently? Are programs cost-effective for the activities completed? These
indicators do not demonstrate whether the program is achieving the results that its mission specifies.
These indicators reflect the infamous "bean-counting" of measurement systems.
Administrative: Regardless of the substantive orientation of their missions, all organizations need
information on how they are performing as an organization. Administrative indicators answer such questions
as: are financial management systems operating efficiently? Arc the employees motivated, adequately
trained and performing to expectations'? Is the organization meeting its legal obligations? Administrative
indicators do not measure any type of mission-based result and were not pursued in CAPRM.
All five of these categories represent important components of an organization's measurement system. For the
purpose of this project, however, program performance, program activity and administrative indicators were not
treated. CAPRM focuses almost exclusively on mission-based environmental indicators and, to a lesser degree.
policy indicators. These two types of indicators are important because they deal with the achievement of results.
They provide an assessment of how well we are doing - directly and indirectly - in our efforts to protect the
environment and in achieving policy-based goals and objectives.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Qualification Standards
In the development of an indicator system, it is useful to list, with as much precision and comprehensiveness as
possible, the specific criteria for defining an acceptable indicator. Reflected in these criteria would be such
considerations as:
The geographic scope of the indicators (e.g.. national, statewide, regional, ecosystem, local);
The acceptable types of indicators (e.g.. environmental, program, administrative);
The availability of data; and
The manner in which the indicator will be used.
Clearly identifying such standards at the beginning of the process and consistently following them will help
ensure that indicators are appropriate for the scope and purpose of the system in development.
CAPRM Indicator Qualification Standards: In the development of CAPRM indicators, the following criteria
were used:
The indicator must relate to the OPPTS mission;
The indicator should measure an environmental or policy result;
Performance measures will be permitted when a specific sub-issue represents a program activity (e.g.,
stewardship), and when the data for a sub-issue lacks environmental indicator quality data and there is a
program performance measure with environmental implications;
The indicator must reflect a- global or transboundary issue of U.S. interest, or reflect an issue that is
national in scope and is capable of demonstrating regional and state variability; and
All Type A indicators must meet essential indicator selection criteria (described in the following section).
Selection Criteria
Ideally, each indicator included in the finali/ed indicator system should meet a series of standards designed to
ensure consistently high quality. Listed below are the selection criteria employed by PEPPS in all of its indicator
work. Selection criteria are of two types: essential, which are criteria an indicator must meet, and preferable,
which are criteria an indicator should meet.
Essential criteria include:
Measurability: The indicator measures a feature of the environment that can be quantified simply using
standard methodologies with a known degree of performance and precision.
* Data Quality: The data supporting the indicators are adequately supported by sound collection
methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures to ensure that the indicator
is accurately represented. The data should be clearly defined, verifiable, scientifically acceptable, and
easy to reproduce.
Importance: The indicator must measure some aspect of environmental quality that reflects an issue of
major importance to the region and the stales in demonstrating the current and future conditions of the
environment.
Relevance: The indicator should be relevant to a desired significant policy goal, issue, legal mandate, or
agency mission (e.g.. contaminated fish fillets for consumption advisories; species of recreational or
commercial value) that provides information of obvious value that can be easily related to the public and
deeisiomnakers.
Representativeness: Changes in the indicator are highly correlated to trends in the other parameters or
systems they are selected to represent.
XX)
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Appropriate scale: The indicator responds to changes on an appropriate geographic (e.g., national, state.
or regional) and/or temporal (e.g., yearly) scale.
* Trends: The data tor the indicator should have been collected over a sufficient period of time to allow
some analysis of trends or should provide a baseline for future trends. The indicator should show reliability
over time, bringing to light a representative trend, preferably annual.
Decision support: The indicator should provide information to a level appropriate for making policy
decisions. Highly specific and special parameters, useful to technical staff, will not be of much significance
to policy staff or management decisionmakers.
Preferable criteria include:
Results: The indicator should measure a direct environmental result (e.g., an impact on human health or
ecological conditions). Indicators expressing changes in ambient conditions or changes in measures
reflecting discharges or releases are acceptable, but not preferred. Process measures (e.g.. permits,
compliance and enforcement activities, etc.) are not acceptable.
Understandability: The indicator should be simple and clear, and sufficiently nontechnical to be
comprehensible to the general public with brief explanation. The indicator should lend itself to effective
and appealing display and presentation.
Sensitivity: The indicator is able to distinguish meaningful differences in environmental conditions with
an acceptable degree of resolution. Small changes in the indicator show measurable results.
Integrates effects/exposures: The indicator integrates effects or exposure over time and space and responds
to the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors. It is broadly applicable to many stressors and sites.
Data comparability: The data supporting an indicator can be compared to existing and past measures of
conditions to develop trends and define variation.
Cost effective/availability: The information for an indicator is available or can be obtained with reasonable
cost and effort and provides maximum information per unit effort.
Anticipation: The indicator is capable of providing an early warning of environmental change.
Classification of Availability
PEPPS classifies all of its indicators according to their immediate availability for use into one of three types.
Classifying indicators in this way clarifies the data inventory and sets directions for future growth in available
indicators. The use of this availability classification allows the presentation of indicators that may not currently
exist as part of the system in order show what will be needed to establish a fully functioning system. In this
scheme, three types of indicators are possible. They are:
Type A: Indicators for which adequate data are available now and can be used to support the indicator
without significant cost considerations. To be classified as Type A. an indicator:
Meets all essential selection criteria and most preferred criteria:
Is presently available for use in its present condition; and
Can be acquired easily at little or no cost.
Type B: Indicators which are presently feasible and for which data exist but cannot be provided due to
inordinate cost, analytical complexity, time limitation or legal constraints. Type B indicators are those that
would be available if some barrier could be overcome.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
xxn
-------
Type C: Prospective indicators for which indicator quality data do not exist and there is no reasonable
prospect of development. Type C indicators are purely prospective. The data do not exist and there is no clear
intent to collect it. Type C indicators may exist conceptually as designs or as onetime studies. They reflect unmet
needs for indicators of important environmental issues. There are issue areas that are data rich and for which the
selection of indicators is relatively easy. In other areas, there is almost a complete lack of indicator quality data.
In other cases, the indicators available are not of the highest quality and do not reflect the best way to measure a
given issue. Wherever data gaps or data quality inadequacies existed, workgroup members were requested to
recommend the types of indicators that should be made available to correct those deficiencies. In this process. C
indicators are considered important. If measurement of all issues is to occur, then attention must focus on filling
significant data gaps and improving current measures. Future growth in our ability to measure environmental
results is linked to our ability to identify new and alternative measures. The specification of C indicators is the
first step in meeting that need.
Pressure-State-Response
The Organi/ation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) developed a framework for organi/ing
indicators that roHoots three different, but related, types of indicators for environmental issues. They are:
Pressure indicators: measures of pressures on the environment caused by human activities or natural
causes.
State indicators: measures of the quality of the environment, the quality of human health and the quality
and quantity of natural resources.
Response indicators: measures that demonstrate what and how much governments and society in general
are doing to respond to environmental changes and issues.
The logic of the model is appealing. It suggests that there are pressures on environmental values (emissions, discharges.
development activities. Hoods, volcanic eruptions etc.) that lead to changes in the state of the environment (impaired
waterquality, polluted air. habitat destruction, species loss, etc.). In response to these degraded environmental conditions,
governments and society respond with positive or negative actions that change the character and level of pressures of the
environment.
The value of this approach is that it facilitates the structuring of a comprehensive group of issue indicators. There is an
implied loop from response back to pressure to show that societal responses to environmental problems continue to
affect environmental values. This feedback loop is illustrated in Figure I.
Figure I: The Pressure-State-Response Conceptual Model
/ 1
Pres
' "J /A /
State 1 ^
A
Response
Other indicator projects have added noteworthy refinements to the basic pressure-state-responsc (PSR) model. In
ll)95. the EPA Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) reviewed the PSR as a conceptual model for
organi/ing indicators. Their analysis resulted in the addition of an ej'fi'ctx concept to the model. The logic of the
model suggests that pressures, states, and responses all contribute to the creation of human health and ecological
effects. The PSR/E model is illustrated in Figure 2.
xxni
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Figure 2; The Pressure-State-Response/Effects Conceptual Model
The full PSR/E model developed by the OPPE is considerably more complex and should be reviewed for additional
contributions to indicator conceptualization. From the perspective of CAPRM, its principal contributions are: (1) the
separation of the idea of environmental effects (impacts of changes in environmental conditions) from the state level
(changes in the environment) and (2) the notion that such effects result from the joint action of pressures, environmental
states and governmental and societal responses. In a political context, where there is so much emphasis on achieving
results, this focus on effects as environmental end points is helpful.
Another interesting piece of conceptual work was undertaken by the European Union (EU) in the development of a
group of pressure indicators . They also added some new features and refinements to the basic PSR model. In a manner
similar to the EPA "effects" addition, the EU added an "impacts" category. Impacts are roughly the equivalent of effects,
but the placement in the model is somewhat different. EPA viewed "effects" as being something that responded directly
to all other parts of the mode], while the EU interprets impacts to be continuous with pressure and state issues. The EU
also added to the model the concept of driving forces, w hich create the pressures in the PSR/I model. The logic of their
circular model suggests that driving forces create environmental pressures which cause changes in the state or condition
of the environment that then cause human health and ecological impacts. Society and government responds to these
impacts in a way that positively or negatively affects the driving forces which in turn affect environmental pressures, and
so on. Figure 3 summarizes the EU indicator model.
Figure 3: The European Union Conceptual Indicator Model
PEPPS believes that the impact/effect concept is a valuable refinement to the basic PSR model and incorporates it
into the CAPRM conceptual model. While CAPRM is consistent with the EU model of pressure-state-impact-
response, it does not consider driving forces as part of its current issue structure.
Hierarchy of Indicators
The Hierarchy of Indicators is a conceptual model developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program to measure the relative
power of indicators employed to reflect environmental values. The ability of individual indicators to provide information
varies significantly. The best indicators are those that directly measure the ultimate and most important results of
environmental changes: the health of humans and wildlife. Unfortunately, there are relatively few areas where
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
XXIV
EsSS
-------
such definitive, health-based measures arc available. Where such quality indicators are not available, less direct
measures inust be used. Figure 4 illustrates the conventional Hierarchy of Indicators.
Figure 4: Hierarchy of Indicators
Hierarchy of Indicators
Administrative Environmental
1
Actions by Federal
or Slalc Regulatory
Agency
2
Responses i)l' tK*
Regulatory
Community or
Society
3 1
Changes in
Discharge or
Emission Quantities
4
( 'hanges in Ambient
Conditions or in the
Quantities of
Natural Resources
5
Changes in Uptake
and/or Assimilation,
e.g., Hody Burden.
HioiKxumulation
6
Changes in Health.
Lcologv or Other
lifta-ls
Levels 1 and 2 measure administrative, bureaucratic, or activity outcomes and are. at best, only weakly associated with
the capacity to measure environmental quality. -Some of the environmental indicators in the CAPRM indicator system
arc Levels 1 or 2. They are employed only when process or program performance indicators are the best available. Such
indicators are usually targeted for replacement in the long run by higher quality indicators. Some sub-issues in CAPRM
retlcct program concerns (e.g.. Product Stewardship) and in such instances Level 1 and 2 indicators are appropriate.
Levels 3 through 6 are measures that reflect indicators of environmental performance. As the indicators progress from
Level 3 to Level 6, the association of the indicator to environmental outcomes strengthens. Ideally, all indicators should
be Level 6 indicators because they measure the health endpoints lor human and biological systems. Future versions of
the system should focus on increasing the number of Level 6 indicators.
In preparing CAPRM, a new type of indicator emerged that did not fit within the Hierarchy of Indicators structure.
Through use of the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) project. PEPPS was able to create several indicators
measuring population-based health risk. Because the ability to generate an indicator based on health risk is a recent
development, it is not precisely described by any of the Levels in the conventional Hierarchy. In recognition of this new
type of indicator and the opportunities for similar risk-based indicators to be created in the future, CAPRM features a
new seventh Level in the Hierarchy that reflects "Changes in Human and/or Ecological Health Risk." This new Level
has been placed in the sixth position, placing it only behind direct human and ecological health effects in terms of its
value in describing environmental results. The revised Hierarchy is displayed in Figure 5.
Figure 5: CAPRM Revised Hierarchy of Indicators
CAPRM Revised Hierarchy of Indicators
Administrative
1
Actions by
I'cdcral or Slate
Regulatory
Agency
2
Responses of
the Regulatory
Community or
Society
Environmental
3
Changes in
Discharge or
Emission
Quantities
4
Changes in
Ambient
Conditions or in
the Quantities
of Natural
Resources
5
Changes in
Uptake and/or
Assimilation
6
Changes in
f lunian and/or
Ecological
Health Risk
7
Changes in
Health.
Kcology or
Other E fleets
The CAPRM Model
PHPPS developed a graphic scheme for characterizing indicators according to the pressure-stale-effects-response
(PSER) model. This graphic scheme is included as the header of each indicator and displayed in Figure 6.
xxv
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Figure 6: The Pressure-State-Effects~Response Header
Level 3
Li-vcl 4
Levels
Level 6
Level 7
Outcomes
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
The CAPRM header efficiently conveys three important items of information about the indicator:
Its position on the PSER scale;
Its position in the Hierarchy of Indicators: and
Whether the indicator is an output (societal response) or outcome (environmental) measure.
Users are sometimes contused by moving Level 1 and Level 2 out of numerical order in the Hierarchy of Indicators. This
is done to match the governmental and societal indicators on the Hierarchy scale with the Societal Response category in
the PSER model. It should be noted that the new Effects concept and the new Human and Ecological Health Risk
category have been included in the header.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CAPRM
CAPRM II is the second version of what will continue to evolve, through successive process iterations, into a
comprehensive, effective, and dynamic indicator system. CAPRM II represents the current ability of environmental data
to support OPPTS environmental issues. This approach identifies the existing capacity to measure these issues and also
identifies weaknesses that need to be addressed to provide high quality measures. These weaknesses form the basis of an
agenda to make changes in data collection activities.
The Quality of Existing Indicators
CAPRM comprises numerous and diverse data sets; an individual analysis of each of them is beyond the scope of
this document. However, a meta-analysis of data quality issues and data gaps is appropriate. With the exceptions
noted below, most issues are adequately supported by existing data sets. In general, there is a significant
improvement in the number and quality of indicators supporting CAPRM issues in comparison with CAPRM I.
The strength and character of those indicators is of great importance to the utility and reputation of the system.
However, there are many areas in which improvement can be made. Observations include:
* Of considerable importance to the validity of each indicator is the quality of the data that supports it. The
data quality in CAPRM still ranges widely from excellent to poor. Tn general, the scientific, technical, and
methodological foundations of most supporting data sets are quite good. The data sets from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
United Stated Geological Service water data, and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program are among
some of the quality data sets. The inclusion of new data from the Centers for Disease Control's National
Exposure Study and the national cancer registry data are quality additions. Quality ecological data from
the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Great Lakes Program and future data from other EPA ecological
indicator initiatives will provide increasing strong supporting data. There are other data sets, however,
that are not as strong and others that are considerably flawed and of limited utility.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measure* II
XXVI
-------
The data supporting indicators in CAPRM II come from a wide variety of sources, all of which have
different perspectives and interests regarding chemicals and pesticides. Data from the USDA. Food and
Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NOAA, Environment Canada,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and several offices within the EPA are used to support CAPRM indicators.
Emerging issues such as biotechnology and hormone disruption continue to have weak measurement
support.
* There was general improvement in the quality and quantity of indicators measuring body burden, health
risk, and human and ecological health impacts. However, the preponderance of CAPRM II indicators still
measure emissions/discharges or ambient conditions. Some indicators continue as program measures or
societal response measures. The continued improvement of the system over time will require a general
upgrading of the types of indicators used.
This second version of CAPRM represents an indicator system that is based on currently existing data, much of
which was not designed to support indicators. The indicators presented arc. in many cases, not the ideal
measurements of an issue, but reflect the best available data. Further, the development of the system is the result
of rather intense research by a relatively small group of individuals on the CAPRM work group and the CAPRM
staff. Broader review and participation are needed to add value to the system.
Where national-level data is weak, there are often excellent state-level data collection systems that could be used
as models for national programs.The use of birth defects information from four states to create the birth defects
indicator is illustrative of this approach.
CAPRM Data Gaps
The CAPRM process has treated data gaps as a serious concern. In fact, many Technical Advisory Workgroup
(TAW) members expressed the opinion that the identification of data gaps and the recommendation of work to fill
those gaps are as important as documenting what is currently available in the form of indicators. An effort has
been made to identify the major gaps associated with each issue and to provide recommendations for future
development. The following represents the major data gaps collectively identified by the TAW and PEPPS staff:
Human Health: Human and ecological health issues arc the central issues in this project. If chemicals and pesticides
did not have the potential to negatively affect the health of humans, animals, and plants, they would not represent an issue
of any environmental significance. Such, however, is not the case since there are many known chronic and acute health
effects associated with chemical and pesticide exposures and many others that are suspected and under investigation.
While the indicator data available to portray relationships between chemical and pesticide exposures and human health
effects have improved and will improve further in the next decade, it remains perhaps the most important area for future
development. The following represent major dimensions of current data gaps.
1. Relationship Between Chemical and Pesticide Exposures, Body Burden, and Direct Health Effects:
The greatest single shortcoming of the current human health indicators is the inability to identify with any
great uncertainty the relationship between chemical and pesticides exposure and chemical and pesticide
body burden, and resulting pathologies. While information on some exposures is available and high
quality body burden information is increasingly available, current science cannot with any precision connect
their levels to actual pathologies. Three key areas arc discussed below:
Hormone Disruption: There has been increasing public concern over hormone (or endocrine) disruptors,
a group of man-made chemicals that are suspected of interfering with the endocrine systems of both
humans and wildlife in a number of ways, including mimicking natural hormones, blocking the effects
of hormones, and stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system. Over the last several years, numerous
studies have been performed, reviewing the health impacts of hormone disruptors. Wildlife studies
xxvn
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
have shown associations between hormone disrupting chemicals in the environment and declining
populations, thinning eggshells, morphological abnormalities, and impaired viability of offspring. In
humans, scientists have hypothesized a relationship between hormone disruptors and declining sperm
counts; breast, testicular. and prostate cancers; and neurological disorders, including cognitive and
behavioral effects. Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship between human exposure
to certain chemicals and endocrine disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health. In an
effort to better understand the effect of certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the EPA has developed
a screening program known as. the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). This program is
designed to identify and evaluate the ha/ard potential of endocrine disrupting chemicals through a two-
tiered approach. Tier 1 screening will identity substances which have the potential to interact with the
endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will confirm or deny that potential and characterize the effects. The
program's priority is to target 15,000 high-volume chemicals (nonpolymerie chemicals with production
levels exceeding 1.000.000 pounds that are potentially capable of negatively influencing human health)
for screening and testing, including pesticides, commercial chemicals, and environmental contaminants.
The importance of this issue and the current absence of adequate science make this issue a critical data gap.
Cancer: Rising rates of cancer incidence in the U.S. are another focus of concern for the public, EPA, and the
medical community. EPA identities a number of chemicals as known or suspected carcinogens. However.
the science necessary to establish clear, definite relationships between carcinogenic exposure and cancer is
not sufficiently precise. While some of the increases in cancer rates, particularly hormonally related cancers.
may be explained by chemical or pesticide exposure, there are too many confounding circumstances to assert
any direct and precise relationship. Life style issues, inadequate understanding of genetic polymorphism, and
the extended period of time between exposures and the contraction of cancer are factors that blur establishment
of any direct causal link. Further confounding factors are the multi-causal and interactive effects of the
potential causes of cancer. Much more cancer research is required to refine the research and to collect
appropriate data to support indicators.
Birth Defects: Similarly, rising birth delects rates give cause to much public concern, and like hormone
disruption and cancer, chemical and pesticide exposures are raised as a partial explanation. The current
research inadequately supports a clear documentation of the precise relationship between some chemical
exposes and a range of birth defects. Further, the data that is presently collected is diffuse and inconsistent.
Relatively few states have effective birth defects registries and the data between states is not directly comparable.
There is only an incipient move to begin some sort of consistent data collection process.
Improved Precision and Expanded Use of Risk Analysis. The use of risk as a focal point for the development
of human health indicators is a relatively new development. The current tools used to create such indicators
- the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), the LifeLine Project (pesticide risk estimation), and
risk estimates from the National Air Toxics Inventory are good first steps and provide measures of
environmental issues that are currently otherwise immeasurable. These tools, however, are relatively crude
and are capable only of assessing the broad trends associated with an issue. Risk assessors need to refine
the application of risk assessment concepts and methods to build more effective ways to assess the risk
relationship between chemical and pesticide exposures and human health impacts.
Health Data Standardization: Individual states collect considerable environmental health data that, if aggregated
at the national level, would be extremely useful. The collection of birth delects information is a prime example.
A number of states have birth defect registries. However, the birth defect categories are inconsistent between
states, collection periods vary, and data collection processes vary between states, among other problems. Some
coordination and standardization could assist greatly in providing more quality data without the necessity of
mounting a completely new data collection process.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
xxvi 11
-------
Ecological Health: While there is sonic high quality indicator data for some aspects of ecological health
(Chesapeake Bay Program, Great Lakes Program, and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program), it is an
issue with many serious deficiencies. Important concerns include:
1. Chronic and Acute Impacts on Wildlife Health: There is a virtual absence of indicator quality data
measuring the relationship between chemical and pesticide exposures and (he direct health impacts of
wildlife, in spite of widespread research results that suggest a wide range of wildlife are affected by chemical
and pesticide contact. Of particular interest to both the TAW and to EPA is the absence of good indicator
quality data on avian impacts.
2. Impacts on Habitat: There is considerable information regarding the discharges of chemicals and pesticides
into the environment and the accumulation of key chemicals and pesticides in important habitats for a few
major ecosystems. More work in a wider range of systems is scheduled for the future. Substantial areas of
the U.S.. however, are without much data and a full spatial assessment is not currently possible. Further.
there is little indicator quality data capable of measuring the impact of chemical and pesticide contamination
on the biota supported by the habitat.
3. Development of Wildlife Risk Models: Incipient risk models for human health (RSEI) exist and provide
useful data to support a wide range of indicators. No other similar risk models have been found during this
project. Both acute and chronic wildlife indicators are scheduled for the future as part of RSEI. but initiation
of work is not imminent. As with human health, risk analysis indicators for wildlife health represents an
important area for development.
Biotechnology: Biotechnology is an emerging issue of enormous public and scientific concern. The manipulation of
genetic material has the potential to achieve enormous benefits that can profoundly improve the health of the world's
population. Conversely, biotechnology has the potential to achieve profound negative environmental impacts in a variety
of ways. Add the moral and religious concerns and biotechnology becomes an explosive issue. Because of its incipient
nature and its relative lack of a regulator)' system, there is virtually no indicator quality data capable of measuring its
important dimensions. The development of good indicators of biotechnology is a major area of potential growth.
Cumulative Impact of Chemical and Pesticide Use
The United States is a nation where chemicals and pesticides are a pervasive part of everyday life. Over 70.000 chemicals
and pesticides are in use and more are being added every day. Some of these chemicals are well documented, but many
others are relatively undocumented in terms of their effects on human and ecological health. The regulation of these
chemicals and the management of the pathways, which may expose them to the environment, vary widely. Further, the
regulatory processes themselves vary widely with a number of different agencies having responsibilities for different
segments of the chemical and pesticide universe. Additionally, many of the pathways of chemical and pesticide exposure
are not subject to any management system. Where regulatory systems exist, there is no process to integrate data or
information. As a consequence, there is only a patchwork of information regarding how chemicals and pesticides, in a
total or cumulative sense, impact human and ecological health values. While understanding some of the components of
chemicals and pesticides impact is helpful, until there is measurement of the cumulative impact of chemicals and pesticides.
an assessment of some of the key sustainability issues cannot be fully explored. Such an indicator is not yet available,
but might be worthy future development.
A suite of indicators and, perhaps eventually, an index indicator could be developed by focusing on the following areas:
Production.
Use.
Exposure,
Toxicity,
Health Risk, and
* Health Impacts.
xxix
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Knowledge of Key Chemicals:
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has an inventory of over 70.000 chemicals that it is empowered to
regulate. Excluding low volume production chemicals (approximately 25,000 chemicals produced at annual
rates under 10.000 pounds) and polymeric chemicals judged to he of negligible potential health risk), about
15,000 chemicals remain on the inventory that are a concern to EPA. Within this group, particular attention is
paid to a group of 3,000 to 4,000 High Production Volume Chemicals (HPV) (chemicals produced or imported at
levels higher than 1,000,000 pounds per year). As of October, 2002. 540 of these (HPV) had undergone testing,
and another 250 had been issued "Decision Not to Test" designations. This leaves over 14.000 chemicals in the
non-polymeric inventory and at least 2,500 chemicals in the HPV inventory that have not undergone testing. The
lack of knowledge concerning these chemicals remains a substantial deficiency in estimating the chemical impacts
on human and ecological health.
International Chemical and Pesticide Transport
As the world economy expands an increasing recogni/ed problem is the international transport of chemical and pesticide
pollutants, and persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) are of particular concern. More research is needed to identify
how much of our pollutant load is coming from such international transport.
Ambient Accumulation of Chemicals on Land Resources
Acceptable measures of ambient chemical and pesticide pollution for air, surface water, and to a lesser degree, groundwater
currently exist. However, chemical and pesticide contamination of land resources is limited to specific locations where
levels are already known to be of concern, locations where some known event has occurred (e.g., a hazardous waste site).
What is not known is the rate at which chemicals and pesticides are accumulating on land resources in an ambient sense.
Of concern is the legacy issue measuring contribution to the sustainability of the nation.
Product Safety: A glaring data deficiency relates to the safety of products from a chemical and pesticide perspective.
The lack of any significant testing program prevents the collection of any systematic data. As the U.S. becomes increasingly
dependent on foreign imports of a wide range of products, this deficiency could become more important.
Cross-Media
1. Pollution Prevention. A locus of CAPRM II is the measurement of pollution prevention (P2). While some
improvement was achieved, the measurement of P2 is still relatively weak. The lack of a centralized federal
program, the lack of a common definition of what P2 is, the programmatic nature of P2 activities, and the difficulty
of measuring that which does not happen are several of the impediments to measuring P2 achievements.
2. Stewardship. The diffuse nature of stewardship activities, the lack of any centralized program to collect data, and
the incipient nature of stewardship programs make indicator development very difficult.
3. Impacts of Voluntary Programs. Voluntary programs managed by industries, community groups, and government
are increasing important as a means of reducing chemical and pesticide contamination and exposures. Useful
measurement of such activities, however, is sporadic, inconsistent, and, usually, local. Better information is
needed to support indicators of this set of activities.
Tribes
One of the major data gaps identified in the first version of CAPRM is that relatively few sets of data used by federal,
state, and local governments to develop indicators which have relevance to tribal organizations. The lack of such
measurements inhibits the development of tribal environmental management systems and does not allow tribes the
complete ability to document their achievements. Special attention needs to be paid to tribes to assess what existing data
is relevant to tribal organizations and to identify alternative measurement tools capable of assisting tribes in building
effective measurement systems.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
XXX
-------
Environmental Justice
Most of the indicators in the CAPRM II are relatively straightforward measurements of environmental quality. The
development of environmental justice indicators adds several layers of complexity. Environmental justice indicators
require not only good quality environmental data, they further require information that can be defined by ethnicity,
income status, and location. These additional qualifications severely limit the availability of data capable of supporting
environmental justice indicators. The development of geo-coded environmental data bases capable of being combined
with critical social, economic, political, and cultural data are necessary for the development of improved environmental
justice indicators.
Miscellaneous Concerns
During the course of the project several other concerns were raised:
I. Links to Sustainability: The TAW wanted the indicators in CAPRM II to have a clear relationship with the
concept of sustainability. While it was beyond the current scope of the project, some members wanted to
include a broader range of indicators dealing with power, water, and materials efficiency as a part of the
project. Future versions of CAPRM might include more refined measures capable of reflecting sustainability.
2. Leading Indicators: Most of the indicators in CAPRM II use data that reflect measurement of past
environmental conditions. Some TAW members would like to see more measures thai have predictive
capabilities.
3. Risk Communication and Behavioral Change: Risk communication is the process of providing appropriate
information to the community and involving the community in decisions concerning important environmental
concerns. Indicators capable of measuring (he effect of such communication in terms of behavioral change
are presently not available. Development of such indicators would provide a useful addition.
4. Cost-Benefit: Some TAW members were interested in the development of cost-benefit indicators, particularly
in indicators capable of measuring the cost of marginal increments of environmental benefits associated
with increased regulatory requirements.
Management and Process Issues
After working on the project diligently for three years, TAW members have expressed a number of concerns
regarding the future of the CAPRM indicators.
1. Use of the System: Normally when PEPPS works to build an indicator system the intended use of the
product is known in advance. In the case of CAPRM. there was no specific predefined use. CAPRM and
CAPRM II have been developed as a general indicator system to assist states, tribes, the private sector,
nonprofit entities, and the community in general in using indicators for their own needs. After investing
their time and energy in this process, the TAW would like to ensure that this work will be used. The most
common use mentioned was the integration of the indicator system with management systems of EPA,
OPPTS. and other client groups of EPA.
2. System Maintenance. Indicator systems are not static; they either grow or they decay. The TAW recognizes that
without some continuing maintenance of the indicators in CAPRM that the system will slowly lose its utility.
Members recommended the periodic review of the indicators, adding and deleting the indicators as needed, and
periodically updating the data in the indicators.
3. Improvement of Indicator Data Quality. Most of the indicators, with notable exceptions, are supported by data
thai was not intended to support indicators. Many of the indicators in this document have been mined from data
sources ill-designed for indicator development. Most of the data comes from program monitoring data for specific
concerns, from program reporting, and from required public reporting requirements. As a result many of the
x\xi
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
indicators developed for this report are surrogates for more precise measures and others, because of
methodological deficiencies, are marginal from a scientific perspective. Data collected specifically to
support identified needs will increasingly he needed. EPA, other federal agencies, the General Accounting
Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the states, tribes, and other involved parties need to identify
the specific environmental issues that need to be tracked and ensure that scientifically valid and complete
data capable of supporting quality indicators is collected and made accessible.
4. Better Access to Data: There is a lot of environmental data that might have been important to the
development of indicators for CAPRM. but was, for a variety of reasons, not available. Some data is
proprietary and must be purchased. Often, that data can be available if presented at high levels of
aggregation. Purchasing data to support specific indicator needs might highly useful and cost effective.
Data might be available but for procedural reasons, difficult to acquire. For example, it was surprisingly
difficult to acquire the excellent Great Lakes Program, Chesapeake Bay Program, and Arctic Monitoring
and Assessment Program data. Finally, some public data sets with great potential contain proprietary
information and are difficult to access. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) details an example of
such a data set.
5. Delays in Receiving Indicator Data. Much useful data used to support indicators has diminished value
because of reporting delays. Data reports generally have a one-year delay, two-year delays are common,
and three- and five-year delays are sometimes experienced. The informational value of data deteriorates
over time and the longer the delay in acquiring and publishing data, the less use it has for informing current
decisionmaking processes.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF CAPRM
All good indicator systems are works in progress. Collecting indicators on a one-time basis may have some utility in
establishing a snapshot of environmental conditions but unless they are reliably collected over time, they lose one of their
most important attributes: the ability to shows trends in environmental values. Thus, at a minimum, indicator systems
need to be updated with new data points. Indicator systems also change because the universe of important environmental
issues changes. Breakthroughs in science or changes in human behavior may diminish a particular issue and register
new environmental issues on the public radar. When such changes in public priorities occur, the issue structure of
important environmental concerns must be modified and indicators associated with those indicators must be added or
deleted accordingly. Data sources that support current indicators can also change. A data source that supports an
indicator may diminish in quality or cease to be collected. Such indicators must then be removed from the system.
Finally, new data opportunities arise that allow an issue to be better measured. In this situation, new indicators would
need to be developed to either supplement or supplant existing indicators. For all of these reasons, indicator systems
need to go through a regular program of maintenance to retain and improve their utility.
Maintenance
A maintenance and development program for CAPRM should include the following elements:
A continuing evaluation of the document with broad stakeholder participation:
An analysis of the evaluation to inform system edits (additions and deletions of indicators) as necessary:
Identification of major data gaps that prevent the development of high quality indicators for each issue
area;
Incorporation of new issues and new sources of data.
Expansion of the system to include new important policy areas and issues of concern to specific
subpopulations. and.
Periodic updates (annual or biannual) or maintenance of a real time web site version of the critical indicators.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II xxxii
-------
Expansion
Once the base indicator system has been solidified, a series of enhancements can be added to provide the system
greater power. Indicator subsystems could be added to support specific areas important to stakeholders. Such
areas could include:
Data Gaps: After three years of CAPRM. it is increasingly apparent that there are some major areas
where indicator quality data is weak or nonexistent. A focused and structured study of those gaps in
concert with an examination of options for closing those gaps could be useful.
Tribal : Relatively few of the data sets federal, state, and local governments use to develop indicators
have much relevance to tribal organizations. Special attention needs to be paid to tribes to assess what
existing data is relevant to tribal organizations and to identify alternative measurement tools capable of
assisting tribes in building effective measurement systems.
Environmental Justice: Environmental justice is a major policy issue of considerable relevance to
chemicals and pesticides. The development of an explicit set of indicators measuring societal performance
vis a vis different social, economic, racial and gender groups could provide an effective tool for policy
management.
State and Local Data; Both versions of CAPRM have focused on national level data as the basis for
indicators. Where state data has been used, it was used as a surrogate for larger scale data. The birth
defects indicator is a good example. However, individual regions, states, tribes, or local government do
hold unique data sets that might be capable of providing data on otherwise weakly supported issues or
may provided perspectives missed by larger scale data. A structured examination of state and tribal data
resources might yield results.
References
Organi/alion for Lcononiic Cooperation and Development. 1993. OECl) Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance
Reviews: A Synthexix Report hy the Group on the State of the Environment. Paris: OECD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Statistics and Information Division.
1995. A Conceptual Framework to Support the Development and Use of Environmental Information for Decision-Making.
EPA 230-R-95-OI2.
European Union, Hurostat. 1999. Toward Environmental Pressure Indicators for the EU.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1999. User's Manual for EPA's Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators Model: Version 1.02.
xxxni
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
SUSTAINABILITY
THE UNDERLYING THEME
-------
SUSTAINABILITY
THE UNDERLYING ISSUE
Decades of rapid and increasingly globalized economic growth, technological advancement,
and population increase have raised concerns that society is consuming resources at a rate faster
than replacement or substitution can occur. There is further concern that degradation of envi-
ronmental values is occurring faster than the ability to repair within the lifetime of the present
generation and that a negative legacy is being created for future generations. Society's actions
have been identified as being unsustainable or unsupportable: that is, they are incapable of being
continued without long-term negative consequences. Increasingly, world, national, regional,
and local scale organizations representing governments, economic interests, and citizens have
adopted the concept of sustainabilily as a focus for planning and implementing activities to
affect integrated economic, social, and environmental change.
Sustainability is achieved through sustainable development. A classic definition of sustainable development is "devel-
opment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development). A sustainable society does not consume or damage
resources at a rate that does not allow for the needs of those who will follow and it does not leave a legacy of pollution
with which others must deal.
The Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council has established a set of principles that summari/e the concept of sustainability.
The following concepts are implemented in a Sustainable Community:
Individual Enterprise: Individual rights are respected and community responsibilities are recognized.
Community Decision Making: All human and natural needs are respected and conflict is resolved through consen-
sus building. The Community is a collection of diverse human and other biological interests.
Full Benefits/Cost Accounting: Achieving social, environmental, economic, and political health has inter-genera-
tional costs and benefits which must be weighed. In a healthy society, benefits outweigh costs.
Conservation: The integrity of the natural systems will be maintained or improved.
Interdependence: Social, environmental, economic, and political systems are acknowledged to be interdependent at
all levels.
Stewardship/Long-Term Focus: The responsibility for future generations' social, environmental, economic, and
political health is acknowledged.
Finite Resources: The members understand there are limits to growth.
The Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures (CAPRM II) project adopts the concept of sustainability as the central
theme for its work. In some way each indicator within this document contributes to the ability to assess the impact that
chemicals and pesticides have positively and negatively on the sustainability of society and the individuals that live
in it.
The environmental issues selected for CAPRM reflect this concern for sustainability:
Human Health: How is health of the citizenry being affected by chemicals and pesticides? Are direct negative health
effects attributed or potentially attributed to chemicals and pesticides declining? What are the trends in health risk
Chemical and Pesticides Result* Measures It
-------
due to exposure to potentially dangerous chemicals and pesticides? What are the trends in the uptake of chemicals
and pesticides into the body? What risks occur due to the inadequate control of disease vectors normally controlled
by chemicals and pesticides?
Ecological Health: What is the health of ecosystems with regard to chemicals and pesticides and are such systems
improving or declining due to involvement with chemicals and pesticides? What is the long-term prognosis for
important species that are sensitive to pesticides and chemicals?
Chemical and Pesticide Safety and Use: What is the legacy of the long-term huild-up of toxic chemicals and pesti-
cides in the environment? Are the chemicals and pesticides that are being used increasingly safer to use, lessening
impacts on future generations? Is the legacy of persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) being expanded or re-
duced? Are ways of reducing our demand for agricultural chemicals and pesticides being reduced?
Food Safety: Is the food supply being protected from potentially dangerous chemicals and pesticides? Are effective
safer pesticides being employed that offer less health risk and lower levels of long-term risk to the environment?
Product Safety: What are the trends in the toxicity of the products used?
Transboundary Movement of Chemicals and Pesticides: What are the trends in the regional and international shar-
ing of chemical and pesticide pollution? What inequities are created by the distribution of such regional and interna-
tional pollution?
The project also looks at the equity impacts of negative effects on special populations: children, ethnic and low-income
groups, and Indian tribes. In each case there is concern that each of these groups is being differentially impacted by the
distribution of exposure to potentially harmful chemicals and pesticides. A sustainable society would seek to correct
those inequities.
Finally. CAPRM seeks to address two additional concepts that are closely related, if not integral, to the concept of
sustainability:
* Product Stewardship: Product stewardship refers to an industrial producer taking a long-term responsibility for their
products by taking actions that go beyond merely building and selling a product. Effective product stewards are now
designing products and implementing actions that ensure that the products use, and the eventual recycling, reuse, or
disposal, minimizes waste and protects the environment. Industry is increasingly taking responsibility for the envi-
ronmental quality and impacts of its products. This may include taking steps to ensure that products are safe to use or
may take a more long-term perspective by integrating concepts such as health, safety, and environmental protection
into the life-cycle of products. This life-cycle analysis includes the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, use,
recycling, and disposal of particular products. Product stewardship reduces pollution, reduces materials waste, saves
energy and returns the spent product for reuse or recyling. All of these values contribute to sustainability.
Pollution Prevention: The objective of pollution prevention programs is to reduce or eliminate the need to control,
treat and dispose of pollutants, and to alleviate the negative health and quality of life consequences of pollution.
Effective pollution prevention strategies and programs will reduce the short- and long-term stresses on the environ-
ment. It is a fundamental building block of a sustainable society.
References
Indicators of Sustainability, Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council; Charlottesvillc, Virginia. 10 January 2003. Available
online at http://www.tjpdc.org/sustain.html
Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development, (Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University
Press. 1987, pg.8. Also known as the Brundtland report.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
ENVIROMENTAL
ISSUES
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES LIST
Human Health
Ecological Health
Chemical and Pesticide Safety and Use
Food Safety
Product Safety
Transboundry Movement of Chemicals and Pesticides
-------
ENVIROMENTAL
ISSUE 1:
HUMAN HEALTH
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Pathologies Caused by Chemical or Pesticide Exposure
Cervical Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Endometrial Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Ovarian Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Thyroid Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Testicular Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Incidence of Asthma
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Poisonings due to Pesticide Exposure
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Poisonings due to Chemical Exposure
Occupational Incidence of Respiratory Conditions due to Toxic Agents
Occupational Incidence of Poisoning
Number of Occupational Chemical and Pesticide-Related Injuries
and Illnesses
Chronic Human Health Risk Index for Toxic Releases
Acute Human Health Risk Index for Toxic Releases
Chronic Human Health Risk for Releases of Carcinogenic Chemicals
Chronic Human Health Risk for Releases of Developmental Toxins
Body Burden of Toxic Substances
Metal Levels in People Ages 6 Years and Older
Blood Lead Levels in Peoples Ages 6 Years and Older
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS CONTINUED
Blood Mercury Levels in Women of Childbearing Age
Levels of Organophosphate Pesticide Metabolites in People Ages 6-59 Years
Levels of Phthalate Metabolites in People Ages 6 and Older
Occupational Lead Exposure
Reported Cases of Vector-Borne Diseases
Number of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 1:
HUMAN HEALTH
There are over 70,000 chemicals currently in use in the U.S. and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has reported that over the last 10 years approximately 270 active ingredients
have been used in pesticides. Of great concern to many people is how those chemicals
affect their health and quality of life. EPA has accepted the importance of understanding
these chemicals and pesticides and their effects on human health as a major driver of their
policies and programmatic activities.
From an environmental perspective, chemicals and pesticides are important because they
have a potential acute and chronic effect on human and biological health. If chemicals and
pesticides did not have this association with human and biological health, much of the reason for EPA's existence would
be gone and the need for this indicator system would be eliminated. In a sense, virtually all of the indicators in the
document are included because of the inadequacy of available data to directly measure health effects fully. If the
relationship between human and biological health effects could be adequately measured, all of the indicators that look at
programs, discharges and ambient conditions could be dispensed with.
However, the measurement of chemical and pesticide associations to health outcomes is not supported by sufficient
science lo support indicator development. The data systems required to measure the association between chemicals and
chronic and acute health effects are only now being constructed. The National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals and the National Children's Study, along with a myriad of new and ongoing medical studies, are projects that
will begin to yield increasingly valuable and complete information about the relationship between chemical exposures
and direct health effects. In the interim, there is information capable of supporting useful surrogate measures.
The Human Health issue is divided into five sub-issues for which existing and potential measurement systems are
identified. The sub-issues are: (1) pathologies and direct health impacts, (2) health risk. (3) body burden, (4) public
health, and (5) subsistence diet.
Issue Dimensions
Pathologies and Direct Health Impacts
The most direct and compelling human health indicators would be those that would measure the direct physical relationship
belween chemical and pesticide exposure and physiological health effects. Evidence suggests relationships between
exposure to toxic chemicals and cardiovascular disorders, developmental disorders, endocrine system dysfunction.
gastrointestinal or liver dysfunction, weakening of the immune system, kidney failure, musculoskeletal disease, neurological
and behavioral dysfunction, interference with sexual function or the ability to reproduce, respiratory system dysfunction,
and skin or sense organ dysfunction might exist.
Unfortunately, the science and the data needed to support such direct relationships are not fully available. Many pathologies
have multiple causes and interactive effects with nonchemical factors that prevent measurement of the contribution of
specific chemical exposures to specific health effects. For most chemicals, it is unknown precisely what long-term
effects they will have on human health. For those chemicals about which some effects are known. long-term risks are not
well understood. The National Children's Study is initiating new data collection processes that may produce the evidence
necessary to establish such relationships. This project will examine the effects of environmental influences, including
chemical bioassay data, on the health and development of more than 100,000 children, following them from before birth
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures 11
10
-------
until age 21. This project will have the explicit benefit of allowing bioassay information lo be related to health and
pathology outcomes. When such relationships are established, then long-term tracking through indicators can occur.
While a wide range of health effects might have associations with chemical and pesticide exposure, the indicators presented
here focus on pathologies with suspected relationships: cancer, birth defects, and asthma.
Health Risk
A potential intermediate measurement of the impact of chemicals on human health is the estimation of the change in risk
associated with increases or decreases in chemical exposure. While the concept of risk is thoroughly integrated into the
culture of environmental protection agencies and risk-based analysis is increasingly employed to make environmental
decisions, risk-based data sets suitable for indicator development have not existed until recently. The Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators project at the EPA permits an estimation of unanchored human health risk resulting from
modeled exposure to Toxics Release Inventory chemicals. This tool is used cautiously to support a variety of indicators
in this documents that cannot be provided with any other source.
Body Burden
Of particular concern are toxic chemicals that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissues.
and result in negative health effects. Such chemicals - known as persistent bioaecumulative toxics (PBTs) - are worthy
of special consideration because of the serious health risk they pose. The measurement of bioaccumulation of these
substances does not measure direct health effects, but it is a good surrogate measure. The National Report on Human
Exposure to Knvironmemal Chemicals being developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides
annual, high-quality biomonitoring data for 1 16 important chemical constituents associated with health issues.
A second major future source of biomonitoring information is the previously mentioned National Children's Study.
Current planning would include chemicals and pesticides that pass through the body as well as those which tend to
bioaccumulale.
Public Health
Chemicals and pesticides are used to manage diseases through the control of infectious organisms. When such chemical
agents are ineffective, a variety of public health effects can result. Hospital disinfectants (hat inadequately control
bacteria can lead to a rise in secondary infections. Ineffective insecticides can lead to increases in mosquito borne
diseases (eg., equine encephalitis, malaria, and West Nile) or tick borne diseases.
Subsistence Diet
There are populations of individuals and families in the U. S. that - for reasons of personal preference, life style, or
economic necessity - have diets that place them at higher risk of chemical and pesticide exposure. Individuals who catch
and eat fish or other seafood as a major component of their diet are at risk of consuming high levels of PBTs. For
example, the limits of North America, while distantly removed from any significant source of direct pollution, have very
high levels of PBTs in their blood and tissue. This is attributed to their status as an end-of-the-food-chain consumer.
whose diet is almost solely composed of seafood and marine mammals that are effective concentrators of fat-soluble
toxic chemicals. Similarly, individuals who grow their own vegetables and apply their own pesticides may have an
additional risk of chemical exposure if they are not well-trained in the use of such products.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals:
Report Summary. (29 January 2003). Available online at: hUp://www.cdc.gov/ncch/dls/report
National Children's Study. (29 January, 2003). Available online at: http://nationalchildrensstudy.gov/
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges
Kmissiims
Level 3
Level 4
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
Body
Burden/
I 'ptake
Level 5
Outcomes
I luman/
1 -Icnlogical
I Icalth Risk
Level 6
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
*nsmmmm
'\crionsh
Level 7
Oimmunity I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs i
TYPE A
TYPES
TYFEC
Indicator: Pathologies Caused by Chemical or Pesticide Exposure
The ideal measurement of the human health impact of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The development of such indicators may soon be possible. In
conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
development of a National Children's Study (NCS) is presently
underway. The NCS will examine medical outcomes and body
burden data collected from a cohort of over 100,000 children.
The cohort will be followed from early gestation to the age of
21. Analysis of the data will permit the identification of causal
relationships between chemical exposure and specific medical
outcomes. The confirmation of such relationships, however, will
take many years due to the lengthy scientific process of data
analysis, results validation or replication, and peer review.
Pilot studies will begin in fiscal year 2002-03 and the full study
will begin in fiscal year 2004-05. The study is projected to
conclude in fiscal year 2027-28.
The NCS, however, by concluding the monitoring when the
cohort reaches age 21 may be missing an opportunity to
considerably expand knowledge of chemical exposure and
health effects well into adulthood. By continuing the cohort
study indefinitely or until death, information could be collected
that could be used to conclusively establish the relationship
between chemical exposure and the character and timing of
medical outcomes across the entire life span.
Reference
National Children's Study. 29 January 2003. Available online al:
http:'/nationalchildrensstudy.gov/.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
12
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Cervical Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive,
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Cervical cancer is
part of a group of such cancers, which have been identified by
the U.S. KPA as having a potential association with chemical
exposure*.
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called tumors, which can be cither benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to and
damage other parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (National
Cancer Institute, 2002a). A malignant tumor that forms in ihe
cervix, the lower part of the uterus, is called cervical cancer.
Symptoms of cervical cancer include abnormal vaginal bleeding
or discharge and pain during intercourse (NCI, 2002a).
However, during the first stages of cervical cancer, often there
are no symptoms. Tests used to detect and diagnose cervical
cancer include pelvic exams, pap tests, colposcopics, and
biopsies. Treatments include surgery, radiation therapy, and
chemotherapy. Although the causes of cervical cancer are not
known, women with certain conditions, such as a family history
of cervical cancer, low physical activity, being over age 50. or
infection with any of (he following sexually transmitted
diseases: human papiliomavirus (HPV), HIV, and chlamydiii,
have an increased risk of developing the disease. Cigarette
smoking also increases a woman's risk of developing cervical
cancer by exposing the body to carcinogenic chemicals that can
damage the DNA of cells in the cervix.
A risk factor that may additionally contribute to cervical cancer
incidence is exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DKS), a synthetic
form of estrogen that was used to prevent complications during
pregnancy from the 1940s to 1071. Exposure to other
hormonaliy active agents may also be a risk factor for cervical
cancer. Scientists have hypothesi/ed a relationship between
hormonaliy active agents and reproductive cancers, birth defects.
neurological disorders, and other negative health effects. The
endocrine system guides the "development, growth,
reproduction, and behavior of human beings and animals" (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Hormonaliy active
agents are a group of man-made chemicals thai are suspected of
interfering with human endocrine systems in a number of ways,
including mimicking natural hormones, blocking the effects of
hormones, and stimulating or inhibiting Ihe endocrine system
(U.S. HP A. 2001).
Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship
between human exposure to certain chemicals and endocrine
disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health (U.S.
EPA. 1997). In an effort to better understand the effect of
certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the EPA has
developed a screening program known as, the Endocrine
Disruplor Screening Program (EDSP). This program is designed
to identify and evaluate the hazard potential of endocrine
disrupting chemicals through a two-tiered approach. Tier 1
screening will identify substances which have the potential to
interact with the endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will
confirm that potential and characterize the effects (U.S. EPA,
2000). The program's priority is to target 15.000 high-volume
chemicals for screening and testing, including pesticides,
commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants (U.S.
EPA. 1997).
About 15,000 American women are diagnosed with cervical
cancer each year (NCI. 2002a). Cervical cancer incidence and
mortality in the U.S. has declined over the past thirty years
mostly due to the use of the pap test to detect abnormal cells
before they become cancerous (American Cancer Society. 2001).
The following charts show trends in cervical cancer incidence
and mortality in the U.S., as reported by the Surveillance.
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics.
From 1973 to 1999, cervical cancer incidence rates per
100,000 people decreased from 17.2 to 8.0.
Mortality rates decreased from 6.2 to 2.9.
13
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Cervical Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates,
1973-1999
20
"| Hi
£ ii.
1 ' ; I
n. in
8
i! highest cervical cancer
incidence rates per 100,000 people wen; seen in women
50 and older.
Incidence rates decreased in the overall population, as
well as in each age group.
Cervical Cancer Incidence Rates by Age,
1973-1999
Year
From 1969 to 1999 the highest cervkal cancer mortality
rates per 100,000 people were seen in women 50 and older.
Mortality rales decreased in the overall population, as
well as in each age group.
Cervical Cancer Mortality Rates by Age,
1969 1999
I n
'
Sourer: National Cancer Institute (NCI). Surveillance. Epidemiology, and End
Results (SFER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics, 2002,
ht.tp://seer.canc.cr.gov/cam[ucs/ (30 January 2003).
Note: The year refers to the year of diagnosis for cancer incidence and the year
of death for cancer mortality.
Scale: The presented data is at the national level. SKKR Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics data may also be viewed at the stale level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data is collected from 11 population-
based cancer registries and three supplemental registries, which cover
approximately 26 percent of the U.S. population. The registries are Atlanta.
Connecticut. Detroit. Hawaii, Iowa. New Mexico. San Francisco Oakland.
Seattle Pugel Sound. Utah. I os Angeles, San Jose-Monterey, Alaska Ari/ona.
and certain rural counties in Georgia. The population used in the Sf-KK study
may not In' a complete representation of the general U.S. population due to the
fact that it tends to be somewhat more urban and has a larger proportion of
foreign born persons lhan the general population.
Most types of cancer are more frequently seen in older people and the U.S.
population has aged over the past 30 years, which means the country's age
distribution changes each year. Therefore, cancer incidence and mortality rales
are age adjusted to the 2000 U.S standard million population by fi year age
groups to eliminate the confounding effect of age when comparing rates from
year to vear. An age adjusted rate is a weighted average of the age specific
rates, where the weights are ihe proportions of persons in the corresponding age
groups nf a standard million population
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay lime refers to the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
to the \alional Cancer Institute (N'CT). Reporting error occurs when .1 reported
case must be deleted due to incorrect reporting (Clegg. r'euer. Midthune, hay &
Hankey. 2002).
References
American Cancer Sociclv . (2001). Health information .srcA-l(2l». 1537 Ifi 15
National Cancer Institute. (2002a). ('ervicalcancer hiniie page. 30 January
2003. Available online at:
h((p://www.cancer.gov/cancer_information/cancer type/cervical/.
National Cancer Institute. (2002b). Stim-Ulance. kpidemiulogy. and t-'nil
Results incidenee utitl I '.S. ntiii'lii/in .siaifcrics. 30 January 2003. Available
online at: http://scer.cancer.gov/canques,'.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Science and Coordinated
Policy. (2001). I'tidiH'rine (Ikni/ittir screening pnigriim. 30 January 2003.
Available online at: htlp:/'www.epa.go\ 'scipiilv.'oscpendo/whaiK.hmi.
U.S. Knvironmental Protection Agency. (2000). Einltx-rincdisrup/i>rsirt-t'tiiiig
pi'iifii'iim: report to twif>ress. 30 January 2003. Available online al:
htlp://vvww.epii.gov/scipoly/oscpen(lo/reportlocongn>ss0800.pdf
l.'.S. Knvironmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and
I oxics. (1997). I mil's ir/pasr imriilun relative risk-hased ein'inmtiit'ntal
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
14
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
TCTEA
Level 3
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
Indicator: Endometrial Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive,
research linking some typos of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Endometrial cancer is
part of a group of such cancers, which have been identified by
the U.S. KPA as having a potential association with chemical
exposure.
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called tumors, which can be either benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to arid
damage other parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (National
Cancer Institute. 2002a). A malignant tumor that forms from the
endometrium, the inner lining of the uterus, is called endometrial
cancer. Symptoms of endometrial cancer include abnormal
vaginal bleeding, pain during urination or intercourse, and pain
in the pelvic area (NCI. 2002a). Tests used to delect and
diagnose endometrial cancer include pelvic exams, pap lests.
ultrasounds, biopsies, and D&C (dilation and curettage).
Treatments include surgery, radiation therapy, and hormonal
therapy. Although the; causes of endometrial cancer are not
known, women with certain conditions, such as a family ur
personal history of ovarian, breast, colon, or rectum cancers.
prior pelvic radiation, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, low
physical activity, or being over age 50, have an increased risk of
developing the disease.
Risk factors that may additionally contribute to endometrial
cancer incidence include prolonged or increased exposure to
estrogen, exposure to tamoxifen, a drug used to treat breast
cancer that has estrogen-like effects on the uterus (NCI, 2002a),
and exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic form of
estrogen that was used to prevent complications during
pregnancy from the 1940s to 1971. Exposure to other
hormonaily active agents may also be a risk factor for
endometrial cancer. A woman may prolong or increase her
exposure to estrogen in a number of ways, including hormone
replacement therapy, never having children, and having a high-
fat diet (because some of the body's estrogen is made in fatty
tissue) (NCI, 2002a). Scientists have hypothesized a
relationship between hormonaily active agents and endometrial,
breast, and ovarian cancers, birth defects, neurological disorders,
and other negative health effects. The endocrine system guides
the "development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of human
beings and animals" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2001). Hormonaily active agents arc a group of man-made
chemicals that are suspected of interfering with human
endocrine systems in a number of ways, including mimicking
natural hormones, blocking the effects of hormones, and
stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system (U.S. EPA, 2001).
Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship
between human exposure to certain chemicals and endocrine
disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health (U.S.
EPA, 1997). In an effort to better understand the effect of
certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the EPA has
developed a screening program known as, the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). This program is designed
to identify' and evaluate the hazard potential of endocrine
disrupting chemicals through a two-tiered approach. Tier 1
screening will identify substances which have the potential to
interact with the endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will
confirm that potential and characterize the effects (U.S. EPA,
2000). The program's priority is to target 15,000 high-volume
chemicals for screening and testing, including pesticides.
commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants (U.S.
EPA. 1997).
Endometrial cancer is the most common cancer of the female
reproductive system (NCI, 2002b). The following charts show
trends in endometrial cancer incidence and mortality in the U.S.,
as reported by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
(SEER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics.
From 1973 to 1999, endometrial cancer incidence rates
per 100.000 people decreased from 30.9 to 24.6.
Mortality rates decreased from 2.2 to 2.0.
15
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Endometrial Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Rates, 1973-1999
Modalitv K;iic
Year
From 1973 to 1999, the highest cndumctrial cancer
incidence rates per 100,000 people were seen in women
50 and older.
Endometrial Cancer Incidence Rates by Age,
1973-1999
Under SO Years of A
;?|=a5S£|t
Year
» S- /the \ational (.'oncer Institute, 94(20).
1537-1545.
National Cancer Institute. (2002a). Kndiimeirial cancer hi>me page. 30 January
2003. Available online at:
http:/''wwwr.cancer.gov/cancer information/cancer type/endometrial/.
National Cancer Institute. (2002b). ('ancer types hy site. 30 January 2003.
Available online at:
http:'''training.seer.cancer.gov/module_canccr disease/unit3_catcgori
cs4 hy site.html.
National Cancer Institute. (2002c). Surveillance. KpiJemMogy, and F.nJ
Results incidence and U.S. mortality .italistic.i, 30 January 2003.
Available online at: htlp:/.seer.cancer.gov canques .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Science and Coordinated
Policy. (2001). Endocrine dutruptor screening program. 30 January
2003. Available online tit:
htlp:'.'www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/whalis.hlm.
l.'.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Endocrine Jiaruptorscreening
program: report to congress. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp: '.'www.cpa.gov/scipoly/osepcndo/reporllocongress0800.pdf
l.'.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1997). Toxics release inventory relative risk-based
environmental indicators methodology.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
16
ill!
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
PRKSSURI;
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level d
Level 7
I
Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Cancer is n disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive.
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
lias elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Female breast cancer
is part of a group of such cancers, which have been identified by
the U.S. KPA as having a potential association with chemical
exposure.
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Croups
of extra cells are called tumors, which can he either benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to and
damage oilier parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (National
Cancer Institute, 2002a). A malignant tumor that forms in the
breast is called breast cancer. While breast cancer can occur in
men, most cases are seen in women. This indicator's focus is
breast cancer in women. However, during the first stages of
breast cancer, often there are no visible symptoms. As a tumor
grows, women may observe a lump in or near the breast or
underarm, change in breast size or shape, nipple inversion or
discharge other than breast milk, change in breast skin such as
redness, sealiness. dimpling, or irritation (American Cancer
Society. 2001). Breast cancer is detected by breast exams and
inammograms. Treatments include surgery, radiation therapy.
chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Karly detection and
treatment are essential for saving the breast and the woman's
life.
Although the causes of breast cancer are not known, women
with certain conditions, such as a personal or family history of
breast cancer, have an increased risk of developing the disease.
Women who are over 50. have a mutated gene, were exposed to
radiation during radiation therapy before age 30. drink alcohol.
are overweight, have low physical activity, or have a high fat
diet are more likely to develop breast cancer (NCI, 2002b).
Risk factors that may additionally contribute to the recent
increase in breast cancer incidence include prolonged exposure
Jo estrogen and exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES). a synthetic
form of estrogen that was used to prevent complications during
pregnancy from the 1940s to 1971. Exposure to other
hormonally active agents may also be a risk factor for breast
cancer. Scientists have hypothesi/.ed a relationship between
hormonally active agents and breast, testicular. and prostate
cancers, birth defects, neurological disorders, and other negative
health effects (Krimsky, 2001). The endocrine system guides
the "development, growth, reproduction, and behavior of human
beings and animals" (U.S. F.PA, 2001). Hormonally active
agents are a group of man-made chemicals that are suspected of
interfering with human endocrine systems in a number of ways,
including mimicking natural hormones, blocking the effects of
hormones, and stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system
(U.S. KPA. 2001).
Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship
between human exposure to certain chemicals and endocrine
disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health (U.S.
EPA. 1997). In an effort to better understand the effect of
certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the EPA has
developed a screening program known as. the Endocrine
Disruplor Screening Program (FDSP). This program is designed
to identify and evaluate the hazard potential of endocrine
disrupting chemicals through a two-tiered approach. Tier 1
screening will identify substances which have the potential to
interact with the endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will
con firm that potential and characterize the effects (U.S. EPA.
2000). The program's priority is to target 15.000 high-volume
chemicals for screening and testing, including pesticides,
commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants (U.S.
KPA. 1997).
Breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer in
American women; skin cancer being the most common. An
estimated one in eight women will get breast cancer in her life
(NCI. 2002b). Approximately 180.000 women in the U.S. are
diagnosed with breast cancer each year and the number is rising
(NCI. 2002a). While the reason for the increase is not yet
known, it is suspected that some can be accounted for by better,
earlier detection and increasing exposure to hormonally active
agents in recent years. The following chart shows trends in
17
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
breast cancer incidence and mortality in the U.S., as reported by
the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)
Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics.
From 1973 to 1999, female breast cancer incidence
rates per 100,000 people increased from 98.5 to 139.1.
Mortality rates decreased from 32.3 to 27.0.
Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Rates, 1973-1999
From 1973 to 1999, female breast cancer incidence
rates per 100,000 people increased in the overall
population, as well as in each age group. The largest
increase and the most cases were seen in women 50 and
older.
Female Breast Cancer Incidence Rates by Age,
1973-1999
8"
s.
{ TO
£,«
s
fc »*'
J 50
0
All Ago
L'ndei ?
2! ]IM»
tt* per 100,000 1
2 =
^ 4(1
S
3
^
Female Breast Cancer Mortality Rates by Age,
1969-1999
*s-*-».
AlKijtirs
rn*TS»y«ai\of Age
* sti* Ycarxof Age
Year
Note: The year refers to the year of diagnosis tor cancer incidence and the year
of death lor cancer mortality.
Source: National Cancer Institute (NCI). Surveillance. Epidemiology, and End
Results (SKER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics, 2002.
http://seer.cancer.gov/canques/ (30 January 2003).
Scale: The presented data is at the national level. SEER Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics data may also be viewed at the slate level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data is collected from 11 population-
hased cancer registries anil three supplemental registries, which cover
approximately 26 percent of the U.S. population. The registries are Atlanta.
Connecticut. Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa. New Mexico, San Francisco-Oak Sand,
Seattle-l'ugel Sound, Utah, I-os Angeles, San Jose-Monterey, Alaska, Arizona,
and certain rural counties in Georgia. The population used in the SF.KR study
may not he a complete representation of the general U.S. population due to the
fact that it tends to he somewhat more urhun and has a larger proportion of
forcign-honi persons thant hog eneralp opulation.
Most types of cancer arc more frequently seen in older people and the U.S.
population has aged over the past 30 years, which means the country's age
distribution changes each year. Therefore, cancer incidence and mortality rates
are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard million population hy 5-year age
groups in eliminate the confounding effect of age when comparing rates from
year to year. An age-adjusted rate is a weighted average of the age-specific
rates, where the weights are the proportions of persons in the corresponding age
groups of a standard million population.
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay lime refers to the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Reporting error occurs when a reported
case must he deleted due to incorrect reporting (Clegg, Feuer. Midthunc. Fay &
Hankey. 2002).
References
American Cancer Society. (2001). Health information seeker*. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http://www.cancer.org/.
Clegg, L.X., Feuer, E.J., Midthune, D.N.. Fay. M.P. & Hankey. B.F. (2002).
Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence
rates and trends. Journal of the National Cancer Inxtiliae, 94(20).
1537-1545.
Krimsky. Sheldon. (2001). Hormone disruptors: A clue to understanding the
environmental causes of disease. Knvirtmment.
National Cancer Institute. (2002a). Breast cancer home page. 30 January 2003.
Available online at:
http://www.cancer.gov/cunccr Jnformation/cancer_type/breast/.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
18
-------
National Cancer Institute. (20()2h). Cancer types hv site. 30 January 2003.
Available online at:
http://training.seer.cancer.gov/module_cancer.Jisease/unit3_ciilci!ori
cs4_by_xite.html.
National Cancer Institute. (20(>2e). Sun-eillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results incidence (iitd U.S. mortality statistics. 30 January 2003.
Available online at: http://seer.cancer.gov/canques/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Science and Cmwdinated
Policy. (2001). Endocrine dismpior screening program, 30 January
2003. Available online at:
hltp://w\v\v .cpa.gov/scipuly/oscpcnila/whaliK.hlm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Endocrine disrupttir screening
program: repon to congress. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa. gos/scipoly/oscpcndo/reporttiicongrcssOSOO.pdt'
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (IW7). Toxics release inventory relative risk-lmsed
environmental indicators methodology.
19
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
i.-K-.tr:-,i.-iaf>-t.-~4. -I
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
Type C
Indicator: Ovarian Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive,
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ovarian cancer is part
of a group of cancers that have been identified as having a
potentially close association with chemical exposure.
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called tumors, which can be cither benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to and
damage other parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (Maiional
Cancer Institute, 2002a). A malignant tumor that forms in one
of the ovaries, a pair of organs in the female reproductive system
that produce eggs and hormones, is called ovarian cancer.
Symptoms of ovarian cancer include abdominal discomfort
and/or pain, nausea, diarrhea, frequent urination, loss of appetite,
and abnormal weight changes or vaginal bleeding (NCI. 2()02a).
However, during the first stages of ovarian cancer, often there
are no symptoms. Tests used to detect and diagnose ovarian
cancer include pelvic exams, ultrasounds, blood tests. CT
(computed tomography) scans, and biopsies. Treatments include
surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Although the
causes of ovarian cancer are not known, women with certain
conditions, such as a family or personal history of ovarian,
breast, or colon cancers, low physical activity, or are over age
65, have an increased risk of developing the disease. Some
studies suggest an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women
who have regularly used talc on the genital area. The correlation
between talc use and ovarian cancer may be due to the fact that
"in the past, talcum powder was sometimes contaminated with
asbestos," which is a known carcinogen (American Cancer
Society, 2001).
A risk factor that may additionally contribute to the increase in
ovarian cancer incidence over the past thirty years is prolonged
exposure to estrogen and/or fertility drugs. Exposure to other
hormonally active agents may also be a risk factor for ovarian
cancer. Scientists have hypothesized a relationship between
hormonally active agents and ovarian, breast, and endometrial
cancers, birth defects, neurological disorders, and other negative
health effects. The endocrine system guides the "development,
growth, reproduction, and behavior of human beings and
animals" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).
Hormonally active agents are a group of man-made chemicals
that arc suspected of interfering with human endocrine systems
in a number of ways, including mimicking natural hormones,
blocking the effects of hormones, and stimulating or inhibiting
the endocrine system (U.S. EPA, 2001).
Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship
between human exposure to certain chemicals and endocrine
disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health (U.S.
EPA. 1997). In an effort to better understand the effect of
certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the F.PA has
developed a screening program known as, the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). This program is designed
to identify and evaluate the hazard potential of endocrine
disrupting chemicals through a two-tiered approach. Tier 1
screening will identify substances which have the potential to
interact with the endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will
confirm that potential and characterize the effects (U.S. EPA,
2000). The program's priority is to target 15,000 high-volume
chemicals for screening and testing, including pesticides.
commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants (U.S.
EPA, 1997).
Approximately one in every fifty-seven American women will
develop ovarian cancer (NCI, 2002a). The following charts
show trends in ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in the
U.S., as reported by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics.
From 1973 to 1999, ovarian cancer incidence rates per
100,000 people increased from 16.5 to 17.0.
Mortality rates decreased from 9.8 to 8.9.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Ovarian Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates,
1973-1999
5 "
"3 IX
p
1 14
S i:
1. hi i
1 *
"c
£ 4
s :
s
C!
|
i
r '( r~ r
. . . L
,-,
n fl n n
n f
VVS5»₯₯»»?5???5???
1 ?
d3 Incidence Rait
1 1
Year
From 1973 to 1999, the highest and largest increase in
ovarian cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people were
seen in women 65 and older.
Note: The year refers to the year of diagnosis for cancer incidence and the year
of death for canter mortality.
Source: National Cancer Institute (NC'l), Surveillance. Epidemiology, and End
Results (SERR) Incidents and U.S. Mortality Statistics, 2002. 30 January 2003.
Available online at: http://scer.canccr.iiov/cancjucs/
Scale: The presented data is at the minimal level. SHKR Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Stalislics data may also he viewed at the stale level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Most types of cancer are more
frequently seen in older people and the U.S. population has aged over the past 30
years, which means the country's age distribution changes each year. Therefore.
cancer incidence and mortality rales are age-adjusled to the 2000 U.S. standard
million population by ?-year age groups to eliminate the confounding effect of
age when comparing rates from year to year An age-adjusted rate is a weighted
average of the age-specific rales, where the weights are the proportions of
persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard million population.
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay time refers to the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Reporting error occurs when a reported
case must be deleted due to incurred reporting (C legg, Fcuer, Midthune, Fay &
Hankey. 2002).
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Rates by Age,
1973-1999
''"
S vi
I
Ml -\evs
l"nder*i>
nf \t!t
3 Y -r if- £ Z-iZ ^~,-±^.^-*=ii
2.2.2. jt ?. 11 iltiizi*:
^"car
From 1969 to 1999 the highest ovarian cancer mortality
rates per 100,000 people were seen in women 65 and
older.
Ovarian Cancer Mortality Rates by Age,
1969-1999
i4"
£ «> :
§ .!> |*
as i
=> 30 :
All Aues
Under 65 Years of Agi;
<*v Years of Age
' f f £ £ t f 11 £ ? ? ? ? 11111 £
Y«r
References
American Cancer Society. (2001). Health information .vccAw.v. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http://www.canccr.org/.
Clegg. L.X., Fcuer. E.J., Midthune, D.N., Fay. M.I'. & Hankey, B.F. (2002).
Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and
trends. Journal of tin- National ('ancer Institute, 94t2t>l, 1537-! 545.
National Cancer Institute. (2002a). Ovarian cancer homepage. 30 January
2003. Available online at:
http://www.canecr.gov/cancer information/cancer type/ovarian/.
National Cancer Institute. (2002b). StirvcillnHce. Epidemiology. aiulEnd
Results inciiJence and U.S. mortality statistics. 30 January 2003. Available
online at: hup: /seer.cancer.gov'canques .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Science and Coordinated
Policy. (2001). Endocrine dtsmplur screening program. 30 January 2003.
A\ ailable online at: http: .www.epa.gov 'scipoly'oscpcndo'whatis.htm.
U.S. Rm ironmental Protection Agency. (2000). Endocrine disntptor screening
pmgnim: report to congri'.i.i. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
http:''www.epa.gi>v7scipoly/oscpendo/rcporttocoiigress08()0.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1997). Toxicx rclcusc inventory relative risk-hased environmental
indicators methodology.
21
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
I
KFFECTS
aMMMM^HMt* tt
Human/
r.cological
Health Risk
Level 6
Ecological/
Human
Health
Level 7
J
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
ly'^^W^&SP*.-^
Regulatory * Actions In
Response?
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive,
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Prostate cancer is part
of a group of cancers that have been identified as having a
potentially close association with chemical exposure.
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called tumors, which can be cither benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to and
damage other parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (National
Cancer Institute, 2002a). A malignant tumor that forms in the
prostate, a male reproductive gland, is called prostate cancer.
Symptoms of prostate cancer include urinating often, difficulty
or pain urinating, and recurrent pain in the back, hips, or pelvis.
However, during the first stages of prostate cancer, often there
are no symptoms. Tests used to detect and diagnose prostate
cancer include digital rectal exams, prostate-specific antigen
(PSA) blood tests, and biopsies. Treatments include surgery.
radiation therapy, and hormonal therapy. Although the causes of
prostate cancer are not known, men with certain conditions, such
as a family history of prostate cancer, a high fat diet, low
physical activity, or are over age 50, have an increased risk of
developing the disease.
Risk factors that may additionally contribute to the recent
increase in prostate cancer incidence include higher levels of
certain hormones, such as androgcns (male hormones) and
estrogen (American Cancer Society, 2001) and exposure to
diethylstilbestrol (DBS), a synthetic form of estrogen that was
used to prevent complications during pregnancy from the 1940s
to 1971. Exposure to other hormonally active agents may also
be a risk factor for prostate cancer. Scientists have hypothesized
a relationship between hormonally active agents and prostate,
testicular, and breast cancers, birth defects, neurological
disorders, and other negative health effects (ICrimsky, 2001).
The endocrine system guides the "development, growth,
reproduction, and behavior of human beings and animals" (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Hormonally active
agents are a group of man-made chemicals that arc suspected of
interfering with human endocrine systems in a number of ways,
including mimicking natural hormones, blocking the effects of
hormones, and stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system
(U.S. EPA, 2001).
Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship
between human exposure to certain chemicals and endocrine
disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health (U.S.
EPA, 1997). In an effort to better understand the effect of
certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the EPA has
developed a screening program known as, the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). This program is designed
to identify and evaluate the hazard potential of endocrine
disrupting chemicals through a two-tiered approach. Tier 1
screening will identify substances which have the potential to
interact with the endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will
confirm that potential and characterize the effects (U.S. EPA,
2000). The program's priority is to target 15,000 high-volume
chemicals for screening and testing, including pesticides,
commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants (U.S.
EPA. 1997).
Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in
American men; skin cancer being the most common. While the
reason for the increase in prostate cancer incidence over the past
thirty years is not yet known, it is suspected that some can be
accounted for by better, earlier detection and increasing
exposure to hormonally active agents in recent years. The
following charts show trends in prostate cancer incidence and
mortality in the U.S., as reported by the Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics.
From 1973 to 1999, prostate cancer incidence rates per
100,000 people increased from 85.3 to 174.8.
The peak in incidence rates in the early 1990's is likely
due to the introduction of the PSA blood test as a
method of detecting the disease (National Cancer
Institute, 2002b).
Mortality rates also peaked in the early 1990's at about
39.0 after increasing from 31.1 in 1973.
Mortality rates decreased to 31.1 in 1999.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates,
1973-1999
From 1973 to 1999, prostate cancer incidence rates per
100,000 people increased in the overall population, as
well as in each age group. The largest increase and the
most cases were seen in men 65 and older.
Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates by Age,
1973-1999
I Mill
3 I Ml"
\ '""'
= i :<>:ii
£ unit)
o.
2 XIII!
^ Will
:
t -till!
1 .w-
'S.
All Ages
Under 6? Vein, ot A
05 Years t.t Ape
From 1969 to 1999 the highest prostate cancer mortality
rates per 100,000 people were seen in men 65 and
older.
Prostate Cancer Mortality Rates by Age,
1969-1999
A13 Ages
I'nder 6.'' Years
-------
Level 3
Level 4
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
lil-TECTS
Level 5
Outcomes
! luman/
Htoli
I [t-alth Risk
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Thyroid Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive,
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thyroid cancer is part
of a group of cancers that have been identified as having a
potentially close association with chemical exposure.
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called tumors or nodules, which can be either
benign (not cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can
spread to and damage other parts of the body through the
bloodstream or the lymphatic system in a process called
metastasis (National Cancer Institute, 2002a). A malignant
nodule that forms in the thyroid, a gland in the neck that
produces hormones as part of the endocrine system, is called
thyroid cancer. Symptoms of thyroid cancer include a lump in
the front of the neck, difficulty speaking, swallowing, or
breathing, and throat or neck pain (NCI, 2002a). However,
during the first stages of thyroid cancer, often there are no
symptoms. Tests used to detect and diagnose thyroid cancer
include blood tests, ultrasounds, and biopsies. Treatments
include surgery, radioactive iodine, hormone treatment, external
radiation, or chemotherapy (NCI, 2002a). Although the causes
of thyroid cancer are not known, people with certain conditions,
such as exposure to high radiation levels, a low iodine diet, low
physical activity, or are over age 65, have an increased risk of
developing the disease.
Exposure to hormonally active agents may also be a risk factor
for thyroid cancer. Scientists have hypothesized a relationship
between hormonally active agents and certain cancers, birth
defects, neurological disorders, and other negative health effects.
The endocrine system guides the "development, growth,
reproduction, and behavior of human beings and animals" (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). HormonaUy active
agents are a group of man-made chemicals that are suspected of
interfering with human endocrine systems in a number of ways,
including mimicking natural hormones, blocking the effects of
hormones, and stimulating or inhibiting the endocrine system
(U.S. EPA, 2001).
Further studies are needed to determine a causal relationship
between human exposure to certain chemicals and endocrine
disruption resulting in an adverse effect on human health (U.S.
EPA, 1997). In an effort to better understand the effect of
certain chemicals on the endocrine system, the EPA has
developed a screening program known as, the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). This program is designed
to identify and evaluate the hazard potential of endocrine
disrupting chemicals through a two-tiered approach. Tier 1
screening will identify substances which have the potential to
interact with the endocrine system, and Tier 2 testing will
confirm that potential and characterize the effects (U.S. EPA,
2000). The program's priority is to target 15,000 high-volume
chemicals for screening and testing, including pesticides,
commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants (U.S.
EPA, 1997).
In the U.S., over 11,000 people are diagnosed with thyroid
cancer each year. Thyroid cancer is two to three times more
common in American women than men (NCI, 2002a). The
following charts show trends in thyroid cancer incidence and
mortality in the U.S., as reported by the Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics.
From 1973 to 1999. thyroid cancer incidence rates per
100,000 people increased from 4.2 to 7.2.
Mortality rates decreased from 0.6 to 0.5.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
24
-------
Thyroid Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates,
1973-1999
1
I 1 llK-LlivHiJf K:|U
Mon;ilic\ KIU-
Vear
; S ? ? I' 11' I i 11
From 1973 to 1999, female thyroid cancer incidence
rates per 100,000 people increased from 5.9 to 10.4.
Male thyroid cancer incidence rates increased from 2.3
to 3.8.
Thyroid Cancer Incidence Rates by Sex,
1973-1999
£,n
5
I ^
g
From 1969 to 1999, female thyroid cancer mortality
rates per 100,000 people decreased from 0.7 to 0.5.
Male thyroid cancer mortality rates decreased from 0.5
to 0.4.
N»U-: The year refers lo the year of diagnosis for cancer incidence and the year
of death for cancer mortality.
Source: National Cancer Institute (NO!). Surveillance. Epidemiology, and Knd
Results (SKHR) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics. 2002.
hup:/, seer.cancer.gov/canqucs.' (30 January' 2003).
Scale: The presented data is at the national level. SEER Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics data may also be viewed at the state level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Most types of cancer are more
frequently seen in older people and the U.S population has aged over the past 30
years, which means the country's age distribution changes each year. Therefore.
cancer incidence and mortality rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 l.'.S. standard
million population hy 5-year age groups to eliminate the confounding effect of
age when comparing rates from year to year. An age-adjusted rate is a weighted
average of the age-specific rates, where the weights are the proportions of
persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard million population.
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay time refers to the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Reporting error occurs when a reported
case must he deleted due to incorrect reporting (Clegg, Fcuer, Midthune, Fay &
llankcy. 2002).
References
American Cancer Society. (2001). Health information seekers. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http://www.cancer.org/.
Clegg. L.X.. Feucr. F.J.. Midthune. D.N.. Fay. .M.P. & Hankey. B.F. (2002).
Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and
trends. Journal of the \atianal Cancer Institute, 94(20), 1537-1545.
National Cancer Institute. (20()2a). Tin-raid cancer home page. 30 January'
2003. Available online at:
http: w\vw.canccr.gov cancer_mformation cancer_type thyroid .
National Cancer Institute. (2002b). Surveillance, Epidemiology, mul F.nJ
Results inciiiiiti-v ami L'.S. mortality statistics. 30 January 2003. Available
online at: http:<'.;sccr.eancer.gov/canques/.
L'.S. Knvironmcnial Protection Agency. Office of Science and Coordinated
Policy. (200!). Endocrine disrupter screening program. 30 January 2003.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/osependo/whatis.htm.
U.S. L-nvimnmcntal Protection Agency. (2000). Endocrine disntptor screening
program: report to congress. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/reporttocongress0800.pdf
U.S. Knviromnenlal Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1947). Toxics release inventory relative risk-based environmental
J"'
Thyroid Cancer Mortality Rates by Sex,
1969-1999
f '"* ""* ^ * "N
25
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
SSURK W STATE k EFFECTS k SOCIETAL RESPONSE
^^j^^^^ ^VMHH.4|n|[|tMa|(^^^k ^^m^a,tf.,airsl^~^ j^u^t,.*. --«.; ;.*-£ ^jfi?T., .TuJBBt^t fciSBI^^^^ *V«-! »^9rf ^PWWUjWBHKlfW)^ r^SK?-SI
mm ^~m B^T£r^fEs±Trrr^^
ss,
-------
Testicular Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Rates, 1973-1999
I4
?. I I S £ * I I ?. £ I I
Yrar
From 1973 to 1999, tcsticular cancer incidence rates per
100,000 people increased in the overall population, as
well as in each age group, except for men 55 and older.
The largest increase occurred in men aged 15-44.
The highest incidence rates were for men aged 15-44.
Testicular Cancer Incidence Rates by Age
Group,1973-1999
s
I
Ml.I
III 1
F:rom 1969 to 1999 the highest testicular cancer
mortality rates per 100,000 people were seen in men
aged 30-39 and 20-29.
Testicular Cancer Mortality Rates by Age
Group, 1969-1999
5-'
t 0"
J 0.4
11l'i 1
Vear
Note: The year refers to the year of diagnosis for cancer incidence and the year
of death for cancer mortality.
Source: National Cancer Institute (NCI), Surveillance. Epidemiology, and !:nd
Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics. 2002,
hUp://scer.cancer.gov/canqucs/ (30 January 2003).
Scale: The presented data is ai the national level. SHHR Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics data may also be viewed at the slate level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Most types of cancer are more
frequently seen in older people and the U.S. population has aged over the past .10
years, which means the country's age distribution changes each year. Therefore,
cancer incidence and mortality rates arc age-adjusted to the 2000 I'.S. standard
million population by 5-year age groups lo eliminate the confounding effect of
age when comparing rates from year to year. An age-adjusted rate is a weighted
average of the aye-specific rates, where the weights are the proportions of
persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard million population.
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay time refers to the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
lo the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Reporting error occurs when a reported
case must he deleted due to incorrect reporting (Clcgg. l;euer. Midlhune. Kay &
llankey. 2002).
References
American Cancer Society. (2001). Health information .v«'Aw.v. 30 January
2003. Available online al: http://www.canccr.org/.
Clegg, L.X.. Feuer, IU., Midlhune, D.V, Fay, M.P. & llankey, B.I. (2002).
Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and
trends. Journal of the National Concur Institute. V4<10l. 1537-1545.
Krimsky, Sheldon. (2001). I lormonc disrupters: A clue to understanding
the em ironmenlal causes of disease. Enyinmment.
National Cancer Institute. (20(l2a). Testicular cancer homr page. 30 January
2003. Available online at:
http: \vww.canccr.gov-'cancer information cancer type testicular .
National Cancer Institute. (2002b). Surveillamv, Epidemiology, andKnd
Rexultx incidence ami l-'.fi. mortality Matixlicx. 30 January 2003. Available
on lineal: hllp: seer.cancer.gov/canqucs..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Science and Coordinated
Policy (2001). Kndocriiw disrupliir screening program. 30 January 20(13.
Avai lable online at: htlp://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpcndo/whatis.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Kndwrinedisruptorscreening
program: report to congivss. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
hllp://www .cpa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/reporllocongress0800.rKlf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1947). Toxic-i release inventory relative risk-hasedcnvinmmetital
indit 'fiturs methodology.
27
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
SOCIETAL HKSPONSli
«f«mE»HiK
Rcaulsiton
TYPEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Incidence of Asthma
Asthma is a chronic lung disease characterized by airway
inflammation and obstruction in which symptoms include
wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath (Mannino, Homa,
Pertowski. Ashizawa, Nixon, Johnson. Ball, Jack, & Kang,
1998). Asthma may be caused or triggered by "familial,
infectious, allergenic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and
environmental factors" (Mannino et al.. 1998, p. 1). Although
there is no cure for asthma, it can be treated with anti-
inflammatory agents (inhaled steroids) and bronchodilators.
Another way to control asthma is to avoid environmental
triggers such as allergens, viruses, tobacco smoke, particulatc
matter, certain chemicals, and other indoor and outdoor air
pollutants (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).
With good management, people with asthma may gain control
over the disease. An estimated 25% of children with asthma
show no symptoms when they become adults (American Lung
Association, 2002). However, damage to the lungs due to
asthma may become irreversible if the condition persists for a
long period of time and is insufficiently treated (Mannino et al.,
1998).
Asthma affects nearly 15 million Americans, more than 5
percent of the U.S. population. The scope of the health care
problem caused by asthma lies not only in the large number of
Americans with the disease, but also in the limitations that
asthma imposes on daily activities, such as school, work, sports.
and recreation. Asthma is the leading cause of school
absenteeism for children and a common cause of work
absenteeism for adults.
The following charts show trends in asthma incidence in the
U.S.. as measured in the National Health Interview Survey
between 1982 and 1999. Due to the use of a new design in the
Survey in 1997, asthma incidence rates prior to 1997 cannot be
compared with later rates.
From 1982 to 1996, asthma incidence rates per 1,000
people increased in the overall population, as well as in
each age group.
From 1983 to 1996, children under 18 consistently had
the highest asthma incidence rates.
From 1982 to 1996, asthma incidence rates for children
under 18 have increased at a faster rate than for all
other age groups.
Asthma Incidence by Age Group, 1982-1996
31 t X-W > car* ni ,-\y
18 Years ot Age
Asthma Incidence Rates by Age Group,
1982-1996
a.
£ '
18 Years of Age
1K-44 Y±ai*of Age
4^-(»4 ^'cars t»f AJK
'^h^ YcitESofAgc
Year
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
28
-------
Asthma Incidence Rates by Age Group,
1982-1996, Regression Estimates
2 ^ ^(-
If *
S 9
*.
8
§ 10
^a
I -"
i
? in
l-'rom 1997 to 1999, there was a small decline in asthma
incidence rates in the overall population. However,
more data points are needed to establish an overall
trend.
Children aged 5-17 consistently had the highest asthma
incidence rates per 1,000 people.
Children under 5 had the second highest asthma
incidence rates.
People over 65 had the lowest asthma incidence rates.
Asthma Incidence Rates by Age Group,
1997-1999
4 i" Year- nl
IS--14 Years «>
4S-M Years o
<'s VrtlTMM
Asthma Incidence by Age Croup, 1997-1999
I
-fo YL";ir<; of AJ;L-
J-I5-M Years ut Aj:c
G 1K-I4 YelK»l'A|R
5-T Years ut Aae
Note: An asthma condition was defined as answering yes to "Have you EVI!R
been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had asthma?" and
"During the past 12 MONTHS, have you had an episode of asthma or asthma
attack?"
Source: National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey.
1982-1996. 1997-1999 as reported in the Trends in Asthma Morbidity and
Mortality, February 2002 by the American Lung Association.
Scale: Asthma incidence data is at the national level and is not available at the
state or local level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: These estimates arc based on a sample.
Therefore, they may differ from the figures that would be obtained from a census
of the population, f-ach data point is an estimate of the true population value and
is therefore subject to sampling variability. Estimates of sampling variability
were not available. Due to the use of a new design in the National Health
Interview Survey in 1997, asthma incidence rates prior to 1997 cannot be
compared with later rates.
References :
American Lung Association. (2002). Asthma. 17 December 2002. Available
online at: http://www.lungusa.org/asthma/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (20(12). Asthma. 17 December
2002. Available online at:
hnp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/uirpolluiion/aslhma/
Mannino, D.M.. Horna. D.M., Pertowski, C.A., Ashizawa, A.. Nixon. I..L..
Johnson. C.A., Ball. L.B., Jack, 1-., & Kang, D.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. (April 24, 199X). Surveillance for asthma -
United States. 1960-1995. Morhiclity ami Mortality Weekly, -I'fSS-h. I-
2X. 17 December 2002. Available online at:
hup: wwvi.edc.gov cpommwr.preview mmwrhtml 00052262.htm.
National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey, 1982-
1996. 1997-1999 as reported in the Trends in Aslhma Morbidity and
Mortality. February' 2002 by the American Lung Association. 17
December 2002. Available online at:
http://www.lungusa.org/dala/asthma/ASTKMAdt.pdf
MTEOF >i Jl*-li
29
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
SOCIETAL RKSPONSIv
Discharges/
['.missions
Level 3
STATE W EFFKCTS ^ SOCIIiTALf
BsiK-wj-ati!^^^ i«
s
if-
^
i?
r,^
-*- I'optilation Sirrv^d
E ^
e <»
;,»1|
o 7
II HI
0
Ve«r
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
30
-------
Source: Annual Report of the AAPC'C TESS published in the American Journal
of Emergency Medicine. I984-2002.
Scale: Data arc available on the national level. Slates are not comparable due to
variations in Poison Control Center participation.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The cumulative AAPCC database
contains 22.6 million human poison exposure cases for the reporting years 1983-
2001. Kach year, the AAPCC publishes an annual report of select releases of
TLSS data in the September issue of the American Journal of Kmeraency
Medicine. Since 19X3. 'ITSS has grown dramatically, with increases in the
number of participating poison centers and population served by those centers
(refer to chart below).
Annual changes in the number of human poison exposure cases may reflect
changes in participation and reporting of cases may not be accurate due to self-
reporting. Pesticides may not be the cause of all poisonings because the sources
of exposures were not verified.
To control for the increase in annual reporting, the reported indicator is the
number of non-fatal poisoning cases due to pesticide exposure per million people
in the serviced population.
The following TtSS categories of products arc reflected in the number of
pesticide exposures in the indicator data series: fungicides, herbicides.
insecticides, pesticides, moth repellents, and rodenlicides.
A noteworthy limitation of the TESS data is thai diagnoses arc not established.
except in cases of known ingestion. The health effects associated with the
poison exposure are reported and not proven through thorough investigation
(Wagner).
References
Annual Report of the AAPCC TKSS published in the American Journal of
Emergency .Medicine. 1984-2002.
Telephone conversation with Dr. Sheldon Wagner. Clinical Toxicologist.
Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. Oregon
State Universitv
31
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Poisonings Due to Chemical
Exposure
The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC)
administers the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS),
the only comprehensive poisoning surveillance database in the
United States. TESS is a cumulative database, with data dating
back to its inception in 1983, of poison exposure cases. These
cases are poison exposures reported by telephone to one of the
AAPCC's regional poison control centers.
For each reported exposure, the gender, age and location of each
caller is recorded. The locational site of exposure, substancc(s)
involved, reason for and route of exposure are also recorded for
each case. To complete the profile of the poison exposure case,
the medical outcome and intervention (type of decontamination
and/or therapy) are also documented.
Each year, the AAPCC reports that chemicals arc one of the
substances most frequently involved in poison exposures and in
fatal poison exposures. The chart displays poisonings due to
chemical exposure per million people and total fatalities for the
years 1983-2001.
Over the past two years, the trend of non-fatal poisions
due to chemical exposure has decreased slightly.
However, for the most part, the number of non-fatal
poisonings due to chemical exposure has remained
stable, ranging between 250-330 poisonings per million
people annually.
The total number of fatalities due to chemical exposure
fluctuates annually, but has usually remained below 50
deaths per year.
Total Poison Exposures due to Chemical
Exposure 1983-2001
I Nim Him] Poixrn
4(XI
150 '
£
50 |
*Per million people in the population serviced by participating poison control
centers
Poison Control Centers Participating and
Population Represented in TESS, 1983-2001
t "'
1 50
15 4:1
'I!
" Poison C'onirtil
100 <'enict!t Reporting
» PopukiiKin Sor-cd
250
.2
i5o -5 :
^^
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
32
-------
Source: Annual Report of the AAPCC TESS published in the American Journal
of Emergency Medicine. 1984-2002.
Scale: Data arc available on a national level. States are not comparable due lo
variations in Poison Control Center participation.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The cumulative AAPCC database
contains 27 million human poison exposure cases for the reporting years 19X3-
2001 Fach year, the AAPCC publishes an annual report of select releases of
THSS data in the September issue of the American Journal of Kmergency
Medicine. Since 1983. TESS has grown dramatically, with increases in the
number of participating poison centers and population served by those centers
(refer to chart below).
Annual changes in the number of human poison exposure cases may reflect
changes in participation and reporting of cases may not be accurate due to self-
reporting. Chemicals may not be the cause of all poisonings because the sources
of exposures were not verified.
To control for the increase in annual reporting, the reported indicator is the
number of non-fatal poisoning: cases due to chemical exposure per million people
in the serviced population.
The following Tt-SS categories of products are reflected in the number of
chemical exposures in the indicator data series: chemicals and heavy metals.
A noteworthy limitation of the TKSS data is that diagnoses are not established,
except in cases of known ingestion. The health effects associated with the
poison exposure are reported and not proven through thorough investigation
(Wagner).
References
Annual Report of the AAPCC THSS published in the American Journal of
Emergency Medicine. 1984-2002.
Telephone conversation with Dr. Sheldon Wagner, Clinical Toxicologist,
Department of Fnvironmcntal and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon
State University
33
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level 3
Level 4
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
Bcxly
Burden/
I.'puke
Level 5
Outcomes
EFFECTS
1 luman/
Ideological
f lealth Risk
Level 6
Level 7
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
ll :_»
Actlons b>"
Level 1
Communm
Level 2
Outputs I
Indicator: Occupational Incidence of Respiratory Conditions due to Toxic
Agents
Occupational safety is a particular concern to employees such as
agricultural and manufacturing workers who work with toxic
chemicals on a regular basis. Since these types of workers come
into contact with toxic agents often, they face a greater risk of
injury and illness. One of the main pathways to exposure is
inhalation. A number of respiratory conditions can develop as a
result of toxic agents. Some of the respiratory conditions that
may develop include allergic and irritant asthma, chronic
bronchitis, and reactive airways dysfunction (an asthma-like
syndrome). Other examples include: pneumonitis, pharyngitis,
rhinitis or acute congestion due to chemicals, dusts, gases, or
fumes.
Due to the adverse health impacts it is important to monitor the
occupational incidence of respiratory conditions due to toxic
agents. Data used to develop this indicator was taken from
annual survey data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) for their annual Survey of Occupational Injuries
and Illnesses (SOU). It tracks the nonfatal occupational
incidence of respiratory conditions due to toxic agents between
1992 to 2001.
The following chart shows a decreasing trend in the nonfatal
occupational incidence of respiratory conditions due to toxic
agents since 1992. Not seen in the chart arc the following:
Between 1992 and 2001, the occupational incidence of
repiratory conditions due to toxic agents has decreased
48%.
In 1997, 37% of the cases of respiratory conditions due
to toxic agents were attributed to the manufacturing
industry.
Occupational Incidence of Respiratory
Conditions Due to Toxic Agents, 1992-2001
Notes: The incidence rate represents the number of illnesses per 10,000 full-time
workers and was calculated as the number of illnesses divided by the total hours
worked by all employees during the calendar year. The product of these two
numbers is then multiplied by 20.000.000.
Suurce: Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOU). U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities (IIF) program.
http:,'.'\vww.bls.gov,iif< (December 16. 2002).
Scale: Data is available nationally, as well as for selected participating slates
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The annual Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses (SOU) is a surveillance system in which employer reports
are collected by the BI.S from private industry establishments. A two-part survey
is conducted and provides estimates for the United States and separately for
participating slates. Part I. which has been collected since ll)72, provides
estimates of the number and incidence of injuries and illnesses by Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) and does not provide data regarding the type or
nature of injury or illness. Part 2. which was added to the survey in l')92,
provides estimates of demographic characteristics of workers with injuries and
illnesses involving time away from work. Part 2 also provides data on the type,
nature, and circumstances of the injuries and illnesses. The data presented here
is from Part 2 of the Survey.
Illnesses reported to SOU are those most easily and directly related to workplace
activity. Diseases that develop over a long period or that base workplace
associations that are not immediately obvious are overwhelmingly under
recorded in SOU. Since data is only reported for the private industry, a large
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
34
-------
segment of ihc U.S. workforce - public workers are not described adequately.
Also not described are Ihe self-employed and farms with fewer than 11
employees.
References
U.S. Bureau of Labor Stalislics. 2002. Injuries, illnesses ami falalilics (!!!'>
/>nt)>r«m. December 16. 2002. Available online at:
hup:.Avww.bls.goviif'.
U.S. Department ul Health and Human Services. National Institute tor
Occupational Safety and Health. 2000. H'orker I It-ullh (.'htiribiuik.
2000. December 16. 2002. Available online at:
Imp: www2.cdc.pov churtbook I'Dplem Chanbk0.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level 3
Level 4
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFIiCTS
Up ink
Level 5
Outcomes
Finn/
Kcologh
HttRisk
Level 6
.._
Level?
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
Indicator: Occupational Incidence of Poisoning
Chemical and pesticide safety in the workplace is a critical issue
of concern for agricultural and industrial workers due to their
increased exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides. Since
these types of workers come into contact with chemical and
pesticides often, they face a greater risk of developing illnesses
caused by poisoning. Poisoning cases as defined by the Survey
of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOU) include exposures
to heavy metals, toxic gases, organic solvents, pesticides, and
other substances (such as formaldehyde). These poisonous
substances can be released into the air and be absorbed by
workers through their skin, by breathing them in and by
ingestion. Specific health effects will vary based on the type and
amount of poison come into contact with.
Due to the potential acute and chronic health risks associated
with poisons found in the workplace, it is important to monitor
the number of occupational illnesses attributed to these
substances. Data used to develop this indicator was taken from
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) annual Survey of
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOU). It tracks the number
of nonfatal occupational illnesses due to poisoning between
1992 to 2001.
The following chart shows a decreasing trend for the incidence
of occupational poisoning between 1992 and 2001.
Overall the trend for the number of nonfatal
occupational incidence of poisoning has shown a
decreasing trend, ranging from 0.9 in 1992 to 0.3 in
2001.
In 1997, 55% of the cases of respiratory conditions due
to toxic agents were attributed to the manufacturing
industry.
Occupational Incidence of Poisoning,
1992-2001
Motes: The incidence rate represents the number of illnesses per 10,000 full-time
workers and was calculated as the number of illnesses divided by the total hours
worked by all employees during the calendar year. The product of these two
numbers is then multiplied by 20,000,000.
Source: Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOfl), U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Injuries. Illnesses and natalities (IIP) program.
http:.'.w\\w.bls.gov iif (December 16. 2002).
Scale: Data is available nationally, as well as for selected participating states
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The annual Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses (SOU) is a surveillance system in which employer reports
are collected by the BLS from private industry establishments. A two-part survey-
is conducted and provides estimates for the United States and separately for
participating slates. Part I. which has been collected since 1972. provides
estimates of the number and incidence of injuries and illnesses by Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) and docs not provide data regarding the type or
nature of injury or illness. Part 2. which was added to the survey in 1992,
provides estimates of demographic characteristics of workers with injuries and
illnesses involving time away from work. Pan 2 also provides data on the type.
nature, and circumstances of the injuries and illnesses. The data presented here
is from Part 2 of the Survey.
Illnesses reported to SOU are those most easily and directly related to workplace
activity. Diseases that develop over a long period or that have workplace
associations that are not immediately obvious are overwhelmingly under
recorded in SOU. Since data is only reported for the private industry, a large
segment of the U.S. workforce public workers arc not described adequately.
Also not described are the self-employed and farms with fewer than II
employees.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures 11
-------
References
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002, Injuries, ilfnc.v.vf.v untJ fii
/troxntnt. December 16, 2(>(>2. Available online at:
http:-'1-'WAvw.Ms.gov/ii |V.
U.S. Department of Efcalth and Human Services, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. 200O. H'orAv/- Ht-alih Chttrthti
?()<}(). December 16, 2002 A\ailahlc online at:
hUjr.._w u v\_2.cdc.goK--chnribiK>kit 'I>plem. C'hnnbko.hiin.
37
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
Level 3
Level 4
\
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/ I
I ici >logi<:;il
I Icalth Risk |
Level 6
Actions by
Retaliated
Community
Ecological/
Human
Health
Level 7
TYPEA
TYPEB
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Occupational Chemical and Pesticide-Related Injuries
and Illnesses
Occupational safety is a particular concern to employees such as
agricultural and manufacturing workers who work with
chemicals and pesticides on a regular basis. Since these types of
workers come into contact with chemical and pesticides often,
they face a greater risk of injury and illness. Toxic chemicals
and pesticides can be released into the air and absorbed by
workers through their skin, inhalation, and ingestion. Specific
health effects will vary based on the amount and type of
chemical and pesticide the worker has come in contact with.
One national database used to monitor occupational safety is the
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOU), maintained
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. SOU collects information
about chemical and pesticide poisonings associated with lost
workdays in private industry. Lost workday cases are defined as
those which involve days away from work, or days of restricted
work activity, or both. In the case of this indicator the source of
injury or illness can be attributed to chemicals and pesticides.
The following charts show the number of occupational chemical
and pesticide-related injuries and illnesses between 1992 and
1999.
Between 1992 and 1999, the annual number of illnesses
and injuries related to pesticides ranged from 914 in
1992 to 480 in 1999. Most of these illnesses were
associated with exposure to insecticides.
Since 1992, the number of chemical-related illnesses
and injuries has decreased by 37%.
Number of Occupational Pesticide-Related
Injuries and Illnesses, 1992-1999
£ 1X1
E 400
Notes: A pesticide-related illnesses includes the following pesticide categories:
insecticides, herbicides and defoliants, fumigants, fungicides, and rodenticidcs.
Number of Occupational Chemical-Related
Illnesses and Injuries, 1992-1999
Year
Notes: Chemicals reported here includes all chemicals and chemical products.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
38
-------
Source: SOU [20(1!). Bureau of Labor Statistics
Scale: Data is available nationally, as well us lor selected participating slates
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The annual Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses (SOU) is a surveillance system in which employer reports
are collected by the Bl.S from private industry establishments. A two-part survey
is conducted and provides estimates for the United States and separately for
participating stales. Part I, which has been collected since 1972, provides
estimates of the number and incidence of injuries and illnesses hy Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC). Part 2, which has been added to the survey in
1992, provides estimates of demographic characteristics of workers with injuries
and illnesses involving time away from work. Part 2 also provides data on the
circumstances of the injuries and illnesses with time away from work.
Illnesses reported to SOU are those most easily and directly related to workplace
activity. Diseases that develop over a long period or that have workplace
associations that arc not immediately obvious are overwhelmingly under
recorded in SOU. Since data is only reported for the private industry, a large
segment of the U.S. workforce public workers are not described adequately.
Also not described are the self-employed and farms with fewer than 11
employees.
References:
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2001. Safety and Health Statistics:
Industry Injun- anil Illness Data 1999. 17 December 2002.
Available online at: hltp:..'stats.bls.gov'oshsum99.htm
U.S. Department of Health and I luman Services, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. 2000. Worker Health
Chartbook. 2000. 17 December 2002. Available online at:
http://www2.edc.gov/chartbook/CDplem/ChartbkO.htm
39
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
HEALTH RISK
Human/
! Ecological
Health Risk
TYPE A
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs |
TYPEC
Indicator: Chronic Human Health Risk Index for Toxic Releases
The ideal measurement of the human health impacts of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations
and in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI
data are normally reported by volume of release or managed
waste of a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation
of this reporting system is that it does not account for the
relative toxicities of the individual chemicals. These toxicitics
vary such that the many possible combinations of less toxic
chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of
toxicity represented by a given volume of release. To redress
this limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the
application of the TRI by incorporating data that, for each
chemical: reflects the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates
the size and distribution of the receptor population. By
incorporating these data with the TRI, (he chronic human
health risk posed by a toxic chemical release or waste stream
can be estimated.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unitless
measure of health risk. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of health
risk over time. For this indicator, the chronic health risk
measures were adjusted to create a chronic health risk index. It
is conventional to present unitless data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the chronic health risk estimate for the baseline
year was adjusted to equal a value of 100: subsequent estimates
less than or greater than 100 indicate a decrease or increase in
the chronic health risk posed by toxic chemical releases and
wastes, respectively. In a broad sense, this indicator reflects
whether human populations in the U.S. are at a higher or lower
risk of adverse health effects from environmental toxics than
they were in previous years.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
health risk of the entire population. It can be inferred, however,
as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is making in
reducing the chronic health risk posed by toxic chemicals.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of chemicals
that were reported every year from 1988 to 2000. The second
chart reflects data for an enhanced list of chemicals that have
been reported every year from 1995 to 2000.
The chart shows that the chronic human health risk
index for the core chemicals list decreased from 100
points in 1988 to 36 points in 2000.
The chart shows that the chronic human health risk
index for the enhanced chemicals list decreased from
100 points in 1995 to 71 points in 2000.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
40
-------
Releases to air, releases to water and transfers to
wastcwater treatment facilities (POTWs) account for
most of the chronic human health risk index (for both
the core and enhanced chemicals lists).
Chronic Human Health Index for Releases and
Managed Waste (Core Chemicals List),
1988-2000
2 A
I S Ml
t »j;ir]st Air
Note: The large risk in [l)91 is likely due U> a release of 144.000 pounds of
Nickel to a wastcwater treatment facility in Los Angeles, which resulted in
drinking water exposure to 3.9 million people.
Chronic Human Health Index for Releases and
Managed Waste (Enhanced Chemical List),
1995-2000
Oflj.llt IclCITKTiltlO
Wola
POTW Trail, let
C Sui-k -\ir
Fugitive Air
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Computer queries of
national summary data prepared January 2003.
Scale: Data from the TRI database ean be viewed on the national level, as well as
by EPA regions, stales, counties, cities, and /ip codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Hn\ ironmental Indicators (RSEl) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The
RSEl incorporates toxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting.
and community-based environmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: releases (air. water, land,
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works [POTWs]).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air, discharges to bodies of water,
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
to air are reported cither as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks.
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI arc chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recover)-; waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutrali/ation. incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds arc not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998, non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1998. electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining.
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
ha/.ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal arc required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally. TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
does not require that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques arc
used where monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage. Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recognixe that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
wn riiiuc « FAIR
41
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
References
2000 foxirs Ri'laasf Invrnloiy: Puh/ic Data Re/c;ise. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. August
2000. Printed copies are also available and may he ordered online from:
U.S. EPA / NSCEP. Attn.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box 42419,
Cincinnati. OH 45242-2419. Fax: (513) 489-8695. Phone: (800) 490-
9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa. gov/tri/t r idata/tr iOO/index. ht m.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators." Fact Sheet, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October
1, 1999.
Toxics Release Inventory Refcilive Kisk-/fawt/ Eii\-/roiiriit?nt;i/ Intticaiot's
Methodology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
I >xer S .Manual for KI'A '.v Risk Scri-i-ning Environnwnial Indicators Model:
Version 1.02, U.S. Knvironincmal Prote<:lion Agency. Office of
Polliition Prevention and Toxics. N'ovemta 15, 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators are available on at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/. 31 January 2003.
To obtain a copy of the mode.!, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information
Service. (202) 554-1404.Tsca-hotline@epa.gov).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
42
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
HEALTH RISK
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
^^B
Actions
Level 1
Outputs
TYPE A
TlfTEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Acute Human Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases
The ideal measurement of the human health impacts of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
loxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able lo confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory' (TR1) is a database of reported
toxic chemical releases into the environment. TRI data are
commonly used as a measure of toxic exposure. TRI data are
normally reported by volume of release of a specillc chemical.
A limitation of this reporting system is that it docs not account
for the relative toxicities of the individual chemicals. These
toxicities vary such that the many possible combinations of less
toxic chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide range
of health risk posed by a given volume of release. To redress
this limitation, the liPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators represent an
analytical expansion of TRI by incorporating data that, for each
chemical: reflects the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates the
si/e and distribution of the receptor population. By
incorporating these data with the TRI, the human health risk
posed by a toxic chemical release can be estimated.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unitlcss
measure of health risk. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of health
risk over time. For this indicator, the health risk measures
would be adjusted to create a health risk index. It is
conventional to present unitlcss data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the health risk estimate for the baseline year
would be adjusted to equal a value of 100; subsequent estimates
less than or greater than 100 would indicate a decrease or
increase in the health risk posed by toxic chemical releases,
respectively.
In a broad sense, this indicator would reflect whether human
populations in the U. S. are at a higher or lower risk of adverse
health effects from environmental toxics than they were in
previous years.
Currently, the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators can
produce estimates for only chronic (long-term) health risk. Next
on the research schedule is the development of a methodology
for estimating acute (short-term) health risk. Current
expectations are that an acute health risk model will be available
within two years.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator would not be a complete measure of
the total acute health risk of the entire population. It may be
inferred, however, as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is
making in reducing the acute health risk posed by toxic
chemicals.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. This past year, the TRI was expanded
to include the reporting of releases from seven new economic
sectors electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
By the time this prospective indicator is available, the expanded
reporting will provide a more complete and accurate reflection
of the scope and impact of chemical releases to the environment.
43
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information ili>li>xy, U.S. F.nvironmenlal Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June 1997.
L'ser '.v Mtinitttl jtir A7VI '.v Risk Screening l^ttviratitm'ntttl Imlicutors Model:
Vcrs'uin l.f)?. U.S. Lnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. November 15. 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators are available on at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/. 31 January
2003. To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance
Information Service. (202) 554-1404, Tsca-hollincttf--epa.gov).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
44
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
HEALTH RISK
EFFECTS
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
I^evel 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/
Ideological
Health Risk
Level 6
Actions In"
Regulated
('ommumcv
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
j Outputs I
TYFEC
Indicator: Chronic Human Health Risk Index for Releases of Carcinogenic
Chemicals
Carcinogens are toxic substances that may cause or induce the
growth of cancerous rumors in humans and animals. Depending
on the length and level of exposure, cancer caused by chemicals
may develop many years after the exposure occurs. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency currently conducts risk
assessment studies on known carcinogens such as benzene,
asbestos, and butatdiene (U.S. EPA, 2002). Other known
carcinogens include the fumes of metals such as cadmium,
nickel, and chromium, which can cause lung cancer
(Environmental Defense, 2002).
The ideal measurement of the human health impacts of
carcinogenic chemical releases would involve indicators capable
of causally linking toxic exposure lo specific cancers in a valid
and reliable manner. However, science is not yet ready or able
to confirm such relationships. In the absence of such indicators,
fallback measures are employed, which include: bioassay or
body burden analysis for known or suspected carcinogenic
chemicals, measures of ambient concentrations of carcinogenic
chemicals, and measures of the releases of carcinogenic
chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicitics of the individual chemicals. These toxicities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release. To redress this
limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. The
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating data that, for each chemical, reflects
the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates the size and
distribution of the receptor population. By incorporating these
data with the TRI, the chronic human health risk posed by a
carcinogenic chemical release or waste stream can be estimated.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unit-less
measure of health risk. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of health
risk over time. For this indicator, the chronic health risk
measures were adjusted to create a chronic health risk index. It
is conventional to present unit-less data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the chronic health risk estimate for the baseline
year was adjusted to equal a value of 100; subsequent estimates
less than or greater than 100 indicate a decrease or increase in
the chronic health risk posed by carcinogenic chemical releases
and wastes, respectively. In a broad sense, this indicator reflects
whether human populations in the U.S. are at a higher or lower
risk of adverse health effects from carcinogenic chemicals than
they were in previous years.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
arc exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
health risk of the entire population. It can be inferred, however,
as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is making in reducing
the chronic health risk posed by toxic chemicals.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
45
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of carcinogenic
chemicals that were reported every year from 1988 to 2000. The
second chart reflects data for an enhanced list of carcinogenic
chemicals that have been reported every year from 1995 to
2000.
The chart shows that the chronic human health risk
index for the core carcinogenic chemicals list decreased
from 100 points in 1988 to 36 points in 1999.
The chart shows that the chronic human health risk
index for the enhanced carcinogenic chemicals list
decreased from 100 points in 1995 to 62 points in 1999.
Releases to air, releases to water and transfers to
wastewater treatment facilities (POTWs) account for
most of the chronic human health risk index (for both
the core and enhanced chemicals lists).
Chronic Human Health Risk Index for
Releases and Managed Waste of Carcinogens
(Core Chemicals List), 1992-2000
li
ill
iliil
Treatment
Water
C J'OTWs
Air
iili
1990 1991 [99;: 1993
Note: The large risk in 1991 is likely due to a release of 144.000 pounds of
Nickel to a wastewater treatment facility in Los Angeles, which resulted in
drinking water exposure to 3.9 million people.
Chronic Human Health Risk Index for
Releases and Managed Waste of Carcinogens
(Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
DoiVsite liKHKr.ti«
1'OTW Transfer
Water
D Stitk Arr
Higitive Air
Chemical and Pesticides Results Meaxures II
46
iiil
-------
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Custom computer queries
of national summary data prepared by January 2003.
Scale: Data from the TRI database; can be viewed on the national level, as well as
by KPA regions, stales, counties, cities, and zip codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory' (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSF.l) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The
RSFl incorporates toxicily scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting.
and community-based em ironmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: off-site incineration, off-
site landfill. POTW (publicly owned treatment works) transfers, direct water
releases, stack air releases and fugitive air releases. Releases to land.
underground injection, disposal, recycling, energy recovery and treatment
operations are estimated to pose very small risks (i.e.. an index score less than 1J.
such that they would not he visible in graphic representation. Therefore, they are
not included in this indicator.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air. water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies ot water.
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
to air are reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks.
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or slack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heal or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutrali/alion. incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRi captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998, non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1998. electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining.
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recover) and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally. TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
does not require that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are
used where monitoring data are not available. She use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recogni/.e that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly. TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References
1999 Toxics Release Inventory: Puhlic Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
February 2002. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered
online from: U.S. I-)PA / NSCEP. Attn.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box
42419. Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, Fax: (513) 489-X095. Phone:
(800) 490-9198. This document may also be viewed and downloaded
at htlp: "www.epa.gov/tri-1.
Environmental Defense. 2002. Cancer Definition.
http:-vwww. scorecard.org; health-
effects/explanation.tel'.'short ha/ard_name~cancer.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators." Fact Sheet, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1, 1999.
Tu\.ii:s Release Inventory Relative Risk-Bused Environmental Indicators
Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
I'.S. EPA. 2002. Carcinogens.
http:.. WAVW .epa.gov ebtpages. pollcarcinogens.html,
L ',\er '.\ Manual far EPA '.i Risk Screening Environmental Indicator.-, \1otlcl:
I'ersiim 1.02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, November 15. 1999,
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators, as well as other information relating to
Risk Screening Hnvironmental Indicators may be viewed or
downloaded at hllp:.'/w-ww.epa.gov/opptintr/cnv ind'. To obtain a
copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information
Service. (202) 554-1404, Tsca-hotline(«rcpa.gov).
47
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
HEALTH RISK
EFFliCTS
Discharges/
('missions
Level 3
Level 4
Body
Hurdcn/
I !ptakc
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/
Ecological
Health Risk
Level 6
TYPEA
TYPEB
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Chronic Human Health Risk Index for Releases of Developmental
Toxins
Developmental toxins are substances that may cause negative
physical and mental health effects such as birth defects and
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (National Environmental
Trust, 2000). Developmental toxins can affect a developing
child through prenatal exposure, paternal exposures, or postnatal
exposures. Prenatal exposure to mercury, for example, can
disrupt the development of or kill the fetus (Environmental
Defense, 2002). Paternal exposure to developmental toxins such
as vinyl chloride can cause sterility, birth defects, and fetal death
(Environmental Defense, 2002). Postnatal exposure to
developmental toxins can also negatively affect the development
of the child.
The ideal measurement of the human health impacts of
developmental toxic releases would involve indicators capable
of causally linking toxic exposure to specific cancers in a valid
and reliable manner. However, science is not yet ready or able
to confirm such relationships. In the absence of such indicators,
fallback measures are employed, which include: bioassay or
body burden analysis for known or suspected developmental and
neurological toxins, measures of ambient concentrations of
developmental and neurological toxins, and measures of the
releases of developmental and neurological toxins inlo the
environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicitics of the individual chemicals. These toxicities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release. To redress this
limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. The
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating data that, for each chemical, reflects
the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates the size and
distribution of the receptor population. By incorporating these
data with the TRI, the chronic human health risk posed by a
developmental or neurological toxin release or waste stream can
be estimated.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unit-less
measure of health risk. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of health
risk over time. For this indicator, the chronic health risk
measures were adjusted to create a chronic health risk index. It
is conventional to present unit-less data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the chronic health risk estimate for the baseline
year was adjusted to equal a value of 100; subsequent estimates
less than or greater than 100 indicate a decrease or increase in
the chronic health risk posed by developmental and neurological
toxin releases and wastes, respectively. In a broad sense, this
indicator reflects whether human populations in the U.S. are at a
higher or lower risk of adverse health effects from
developmental and neurological toxins than they were in
previous years.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
health risk of the entire population. It can be inferred, however,
as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is making in reducing
the chronic health risk posed by toxic chemicals.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
48
-------
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
A list of known and suspected developmental and neurological
toxins was developed by the National Environmental Trust
(2000) based on chemicals in the TRI. This list was used to
produce the following charts. Two different subsets of TRI data
are reflected in these charts. The first chart reflects data for a
core list of developmental and neurological toxins that were
reported every year from 1988 to 2000. The second chart
reflects data for an enhanced list of developmental and
neurological toxins that have been reported every year from
1995 to 2000.
The chart shows that the chronic human health risk
index for the core developmental toxins list decreased
from 100 points in 1988 to 11 points in 2000.
The chart shows that the chronic human health risk
index for the enhanced developmental and neurological
toxins list decreased from 100 points in 1995 to 58
points in 2000.
Chronic Human Health Index for Releases and
Managed Waste of Developmental Toxics
(Core Chemicals List), 1988-2000
Treatim'nl
WORT
Chronic Human Health Index for Releases and
Managed Waste of Developmental Toxics
(Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
OD'sii- [ncmcralion
a I'D I Wl rainier
T) W iiu-l
Suck Air
[ utttiM: Air
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. Custom computer queries
»t'national summary data prepared by January 2003.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can be viewed on (he national level, as well as
by KPA regions, states, counties, cities, and /.ip codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and docs not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSHI) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The
KSKI incorporates loxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioriti/c chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting,
and community-based environmental protection.
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: off-site incineration, off-
sile landfill, POTW (publicly owned treatment works) transfers, direct water
releases, stack air releases and fugitive air releases. Releases to land,
underground injection, disposal, recycling, energy recovery and treatment
operations are estimated to pose very small risks (i.e.. an index score less than 1).
such that they would not be visible in graphic representation. Therefore, they are
not included in this indicator.
INSTlnlHOF M II Nil
49
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies (it water,
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
to air are reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases, l-'acilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998. non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining,
chcmiciil wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
ha/ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally. TRI mandates the reporting of estimated daw. but
does not require that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are
used wnere monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage. Another limitation is that there is an IS-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recognise that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
arc not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Knvironmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References
1999 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
February 2002. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered
online from: U.S. EPA / NSCEP. Attn.: Publication Orders. P.O. Box
42419, Cincinnati. OH 45242-2419, Fax: (513) 489-8695. Phone:
(800) 490-919X. 14 January 2003. Available online at:
http: "www.epa.gov/lri/.
Environmental Defense. (2002). Health effects.
h Up ://www. scoreeard. org/health-efTeets/.
National Environmental Trust. (2000). Polluting our future: chemical pollution
in the U.S. that affects chili! development and learning.
http://www.safekidsinfo.org.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators," Fact Sheet. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1, 1999.
Toxic? Ki'lett.ie Inventory Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicators
Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User '.v Manual for EPA 's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model:
yeriiim 1.02. U.S. 1 environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, November 15, 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators may be viewed or downloaded at http: www.epa.gov opptintr rsei .
To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSt'A Assistance Information
Service, (202) 554-1404. Tsca-hollineiViepa.gov).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
50
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
lil-TKCTS
Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
Body
burden/
Uptake:
Level 5
Outcomes
TYPEA
TYPES
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs _ 9
TYPEC
Indicator: Body Burden of Toxic Substances
The ideal measurement of the human health impact of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The Second National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals (2003) will provide an ongoing
assessment of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental
chemicals using biomonitoring. The Report provides exposure
information for people participating in the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC's), National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 1999-2000. This
data will establish the baseline for these chemical levels in future
years and future data will also be released in two-year groups.
The Report presents levels of 116 environmental chemicals
measured in the U.S. population.
The 116 chemicals included in the Report belong to one of the
following chemical groups:
metals
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
tobacco smoke
phthalates
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated
dibenxofurans, and coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls
polychlorinated biphenyls
phytoestrogens
* urganophosphate pesticides
organochlorine pesticides
carbamate pesticides
herbicides
pest repellents and disinfectants
Indicators for metals, phthalates, and organophosphates have
been developed and detailed descriptions are provided in this
updated Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures document.
Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NllANIiS).
1999-2000. as reported by the CDC's Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Kmironmenlal Chemicals (2003). Available online at:
http: \v\vv. xdc.go^ exposurercport (4 March 2003).
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals and NHANKS data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated lo the slate or KI'A regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NUANHS). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, racc/cthnicity, age, income.
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted lo general U.S. population data for the years 1°*W to 2000
from the NHANF.S. ll currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the li.S. population.
The SHANKS is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
The NIIANKS is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionali/ed population. A household interview and physical examination
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination.
blood and urine specimens are collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important lo note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine docs not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report arc required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
Reference
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Second National Rc/xiri t»t
Human £.v/««i«v lo Environmental Chemicals. 4 March 200?
Available online :»! hllrv'.'www.cdc.tjov/exnosiircrenorl/
E//3
51
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures ll
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
KrFICCTS
I luman/
l',to)ni^ica.
Health Risk
Level 6
Level 7
Regulator*
Responses
L RESPONSE k
'k, ' ' ' -"'J^
1 Acli"ns b>' MH
I K
-------
of 0.5 milligrams of soluble barium compounds per
cubic meter of air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour
workweek. NIOSH currently recommends that a level
of 50 mg/m3 be considered immediately dangerous
because at this level barium is likely to cause
permanent health problems and even death (ASTDR,
2002).
Cesium - Stable and radioactive cesium can enter the
body from contaminated food, water, air, or from
contact with the skin. When you eat, drink, breathe, or
touch things containing cesium compounds that can
easily be dissolved in water, cesium enters your blood
and is carried to all parts of your body (Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2002).
Exposure to large amounts of radioactive cesium could
cause the cells in your body to become damaged from
the radiation that might penetrate your entire body.
One might also experience acute radiation syndrome.
which includes such effects as nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea, bleeding, coma, and even death (ASTDR.
2002).
Molybdenum - Exposure to Molybdenum is normally
through inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact.
Information on the effect of molybdenum on humans is
limited: most available research information is on
animals. OSHA has recommended an exposure limit of
15 irig/nT for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek
(NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, 2002).
Because of the multiple pathways for metal exposure and the
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure, it is
important to monitor the body burden of different metals. This
indicator tracks metal levels using the Second National Report
on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals conducted by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003).
The Report will provide an ongoing assessment of the exposure
of the U.S. population to environmental chemicals.
The following charts show national average urine levels in
people ages six and older of cobalt, cadmium, thallium,
tungsten, antimony, uranium, barium, cesium and molybdenum
for 1999 to 2000. This data will establish the baseline for these
metal levels in future years and future data will also be released
in two-year groups. Each metal is grouped with other metals of
similar scale for effective graphing.
Cobalt - 0.35 g/L, Cadmium - 0.326 g/L. Thallium -
0.167 g/L, Tungsten - 0.081 g/L, Antimony - 0.114
g/L, Uranium 0.007 - g/L
Metal Levels in People Ages 6 and Older,
1999-2000
Cutiat
t'admiu
C I [uiUinit!
Ainirr..nv
131 nig* nil
O [ t:iniLiin
Barium -1.15 g/L, Cesium - 4.34 g/L
Barium and Cesium Levels in People Ages 6
and Older, 1999-2000
Molybdenum - 34.3 g/L
Molybdenum Levels in People Ages 6 and
Older, 1999-2000
Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANF.S),
I1W9-2()00. us reported hy the CDC's Second National Report on Human
lixposuro to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available online at:
tittp: \v\vw.cdc.go\ cxposurereport (4 March 2003).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Hn\ ironmental
Chemicals and NHANES data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the slate or EPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). It displays levels of exposure tor these
cheTiicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age, income,
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The seeond release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 199') to 2000
from the NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The NHANES is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
The NHANES is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionalized population. A household interview and physical examination
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination.
blood and urine specimens arc collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Second\atiimal Report on
Human Exposure lo Environmental Chemicals. 4 March 2003.
Available online at: http:-www.cdc.gov exposurereport/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2002). 14 January 2003. Available
online at: http://www.at.sdr.cdc.gov'
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health INIOSH). Occupational
Health and Safety Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. (2002). 14
January 2003. Available online at:
http://ww» .cdc. go v, n ios h/homcpagc. html
Filidci, M.D. (2002). Toxic Metals and Mental Health. San I-'rancisco. C'A: San
Francisco Preventative Medical Group.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
54
-------
PRESSURE
Level 3
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TYPE A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Blood Lead Levels in People Ages 6 Years and Older
The hazardous effects of lead on human health have been well
researched and established. Lead can affect almost every organ
and system in the body and cause both acute and chronic health
problems. The most sensitive system to lead in the body is the
central nervous system. In adults, lead may decrease reaction
time, cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles, and possibly
affect the memory. Lead also damages kidneys and the immune
system. Lead may cause anemia, abortion, or damage to the
male reproductive system. Several chemical compounds of lead
such as, lead acetate and lead phosphate are suspected
carcinogens based on studies in animals; however there is
inadequate evidence to clearly determine lead's carcinogenicity
in humans (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services 1993).
} lutnans are exposed to lead through a number of sources. The
most common sources of lead exposure include:
Breathing workplace air (lead smelting, refining, and
manufacturing industries);
Drinking water that comes from lead pipes or lead
soldered fittings;
Breathing or ingesting contaminated soil, dust, air, or
water near waste sites;
* Breathing tobacco smoke;
Eating contaminated food grown on soil containing
lead or food covered with lead-contaminated dust;
* Breathing fumes or ingesting lead from hobbies that
use lead (leaded-glass, ceramics).
Because of the multiple pathways for lead exposure and the
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure, it is
important to monitor lead body burden. This indicator tracks
blood lead levels using the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC"s) Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003) and National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The
Report will provide an ongoing assessment of the exposure of
the U.S. population to environmental chemicals.
The following chart shows trends in blood lead levels of people
ages 6 years and older, from 1991 to 2000. Blood lead levels of
25 g/dL and above are considered to be elevated levels. Blood
lead levels have been decreasing partly due to the restrictions on
lead in gasoline, ceramic products, paints for residential use, and
solder used on food cans.
From 1991-1994 to 1999-2000, the geometric mean
blood lead level in people ages 6 and older, decreased
25%.
The geometric mean blood lead level in people ages 6
and older from 1999 to 2000 was 1.66 g/dL.
Blood Lead Levels in People Ages 6 Years and
Older, 1991-1999
Notes: g/dL ~ micrograms per deciliter ol blood
Source for 1999-2000 Data: The National Health and Nutrition [Examination
Survey (NHANI-S). 1999-2000, as reported by the CDC's Second National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available
online at: http://wwwxtic.gov/exposurereport.' (4 March 2003).
Source for 1W-1994 Data: The NHANHS as reported by Pirkle, J.L..
Kaufmann, R.B.. Brody. D.J.. Hickman. T., Guntcr. F..W., & Paschal. IXC.
tjjj§
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
(I99X. November). Exposure of the U.S. population ID lead. 1991-1994.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 106(11). 745-750.
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Hxposurc to Environmental
Chemicals and NHANF.S data provide national estimates and cannot he
disaggregated to the state or EPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
infornutiun by drawing data annually from C'DC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race ethnicity, age. income,
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general b'.S. population data for the years 1999 to 2000
from tie NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The NIIANES is conducted by the CDC National Center tor Health Statistics.
The NHANES is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionalized population. A household interview and physical examination
are eor.ducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination.
blood and urine specimens are collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). .SVt»«
-------
Level 3
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
PRKSSl HI- k STATE W EFFECTS
D.sdur^s/ P Amlwm f ^^ i i"^ I
l-.nms,«,ns Comlmnns ^^ f k,llth Rlsk
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
SOCIF.TAL RESPONSE
Actions by
Regulated
Communm
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Blood Mercury Levels in Women of Childbearing Age
Exposure to mercury occurs from breathing contaminated air.
ingesting contaminated water and food, and having dental and
medical treatments. Mercury, at certain levels, may damage the
brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Mercury exposures to
women of childbcaring age are of great concern because the
fetus is highly susceptible to adverse effects. Mercury in the
mother's body passes to the fetus and can pass to a nursing infant
through breast milk. Mercury's harmful effects that may be
passed from the mother to the developing fetus include brain
damage, mental retardation, lack of coordination, blindness.
seizures, and an inability to speak.
Due to the adverse human health affects associated with mercury
and the multiple pathways for exposure, it is important to
monitor mercury levels. This indicator was developed to track
blood mercury levels in females ages 16 to 49 using the Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) (2003). The Report will provide an ongoing
assessment of the exposure of the U.S. population to
environmental chemicals.
The following bullet shows the national average blood mercury
level in women of childbcaring age (ages 16 to 49) for 1999 to
2000. This datum will establish the baseline for blood mercury
levels in future years and future data will also be released in
two-year groups.
* The geometric mean blood mercury level for women of
childbearing age was 1.02 u.g/L for 1999-2000.
Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANLS),
1999-2000, as reported hy the CDC's Second National Report on Human
l-'xposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurcrcporl/(4 March 2003).
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Knvironmcnlal
Chemicals and NUANl-'S data provide national estimates and cannot he
disaggregated to the state or I-J'A regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age, income.
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 1<»9 to 2000
from ihc NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The MIANES is conducted by the CDC' National Center for Health Statistics.
The \HANKS is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
mstitulionali/ed population. A household interview and physical examination
arc conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination.
blond and urine specimens are collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens-
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
Iheir blood or urine does not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). fict-tintl National Report an
Human Exposure to Environmental Chcmu-ulx. 4 March 200.1.
Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurercport/
Centers for Disease C'ontrol and Prevention. "Blood and Hair Mercury Levels in
Young Children and Women of Childbcuring Age U.S., 19>)9"
Morbidity ami Mortality Weekly Report. 29 January 2003. Available
online at:
hup: wwvv.cdc.gov'mmwr.'preview.mmwrhlml mm.''OOXa2.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Discharges/
1 Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
EFFECTS
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
J
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
^^^^^H
Regulatory Actions bv
Responses
i
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs J
TYFEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Levels of Organophosphate Pesticide Metabolites in People Ages 6-
59 Years
Organophosphate pesticides are widely used on many food
crops, as well as in residential and commercial buildings, and for
ornamental plants and lawn care. They account for nearly one-
half of insecticides used in the U.S., with approximately 60
million pounds applied to U.S. agricultural crops annually. Some
of the characteristics that have lead to their widespread use
include, their ability to control a variety of insect pests; they arc
relatively inexpensive; and for the most part, insects have not
developed resistance to them.
Organophosphatcs have a common mechanism of toxicity - they
all affect the nervous system by reducing the ability of
cholinesterase, an enzyme, to deactivate the chemical
acetylcholinc, a neuro-transmitter that transfers impulses across
nerves and to muscles. Such cholinesterase inhibition allows
nerve impulses to remain active longer than they should
resulting in overstimulation of the nervous system, causing such
symptoms as weakness and sometimes paralysis at higher levels
of exposure. Acute toxic effects may include headaches, nausea,
dizziness, anxiety and restlessness. While the acute effects of
organophosphates are well documented and generally
understood, the chronic effects are less certain.
People may be exposed to organophosphates routinely in several
ways - through the diet, in drinking water, around the home, and
while applying these pesticides. Since organophosphates are
widely used and they arc known to pose risks of acute and
chronic toxicity to both humans and wildlife, it is important to
monitor exposure to them.
This indicator provides measurements for urinary metabolites of
Organophosphate pesticides in people ages 6-59 for 1999-2000,
as reported by the Second National Report on Human Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). The Report will
provide an ongoing assessment of the exposure of the U.S.
population to environmental chemicals. This data will establish
the baseline for these Organophosphate levels in future years and
future data will also be released in two-year groups.
While further research is needed to determine whether the
metabolite levels reported here are of concern for human health,
this information is useful for providing a reference range so that
physicians and researchers can determine whether people have
been exposed to higher levels of Organophosphate pesticides
than those experienced in the general population.
Levels of Organophosphate Pesticide
Metabolites in People Ages 6-59 years,
1999-2000
Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SHANES),
IW9-2000, as reported by the CDC's Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available online at:
http://www.cdt.gov/exposurereporL'1 (4 March 2003).
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Kxposure to Environmental
Chemicals and NHANES data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the slate or F.PA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: "1'hc Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age, income,
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 19*W to 2000
from the NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The NHANES is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
The NHANES is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionalised population. A household interview and physical examination
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination,
blood and urine specimens are collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
it is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine docs not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels ot
specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
C'enters for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Second \alional Report on
Human Exiwsure to Knvirnnmenlal Chemicals. 4 March 2003.
Available online at: http: w\v\v.edc.gov exposurcreporl
L'.S. !J'A, Office of Pesticide Programs. 19'W. "Organophosphate pesticides in
food: a primer on reassessment of residue limits". TSJ-K-W-014.
29 January- 2003. Available online at:
http:/;w\v\v.epa.j!ov/pesticides/op'primer.hlm
59
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
PRESSURE
Met.
Discharges/
I Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
LevelS
Outcomes
1
Health Risk
Level 6
t SOCIETAL RESPONSE W
rx; :'; ' '-- '' y3" *' ' ii^^^
Regulatory §* Acd""s bV IP
Kespr'^ I RtKuli'
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
BODY BURDEN
HI'FIiCTS
Burden/
Uptake
Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Occupational Lead Exposure
Between 90 and 95 percent of adults with elevated blood lead
levels are exposed occupationally. In 2001, 125 out of one
million adults in the U.S. had an elevated blood lead level,
which is defined as 25 g of lead per dL of blood (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 2000).
Occupational exposure to lead occurs via inhalation of lead-
containing dust and fumes as well as ingestion from contact with
Icad-conlaminatcd surfaces. High-risk industries and
occupations for lead exposure include: radiator repair shops,
battery recycling operations, and construction-related jobs such
us bridge repair and home remodeling. Workers exposed to lead
can experience anemia, nervous system dysfunction, kidney
problems, hypertension, decreased fertility, and increased
miscarriages. Workers can also bring lead home from their
workplace and unknowingly expose their families.
Due to the adverse health impacts caused by lead exposure, it is
important to monitor occupational blood lead levels. This
indicator tracks occupational lead exposure by using data from
the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLLS)
program. State ABLES programs collect blood lead level data
from local health departments and state reporting laboratories.
ABLES defines an adult as a person aged 16 or older and an
elevated blood lead level (BLL) in an adult as greater than or
equal to 25 g/dL, although BLL reporting thresholds vary
among the states.
The following charts show the prevalence (all cases reported
that year) and/or incidence (new cases only) rates for elevated
blood lead levels of adults from 1993 to 1998 and from 1998 to
2001.
From 1993 to 1998, prevalence rates for BLLs of 25
g/dL or greater have decreased by 19% since 1995.
In 1998 about 11,000 U.S. workers were reported
by the ABLHS states to have blood lead levels
greater than or equal to 25 g/dL. This number is
known to be an underestimate because many lead-
exposed workers do not have routine blood lead
fevcl testing.
Prevalence and Incidence Rates or Adults Aged
16-64 with Elevated BLLs, 1993-1998
tinnknce
KalL-s
Notes: Prevalence rales are based on nil persons reported in a given year.
Incidence rates are based on new. cases reported in a given year.
From 1998 to 2001, prevalence rates for BLLs of
25 g/dL or greater decreased, however, more data
points are needed to establish a trend.
Prevalence Rates of Employed Adults Aged 16
& Older with Elevated BLLs, 1998-2001
61
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source of 1993-1998 data: ABLES (1999). as reported in the Worker Health
Chartbook 2000, compiled by the National Institute tor Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Source of 1998-2000 data: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002).
"Adult Blood Lead Hpidcmiolugy and Surveillance United States, 199X-2001.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report fHxs-ll).
Scale: ABLES data is available for the twenty-seven states that participated in
this program from 1993 to 1998 and the 25 states that participated from 1998 to
2001.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Occupational lead exposure data for
this indicator come from Stale registries that report adult blood lead levels. Data
are compiled by NIOSH in the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology Survey
(ABLKS). All ABLES data are subject to certain limitations and. as with state-
specific prevalence data, may not convey a true picture of workplace lead
exposure. Variation in the number of persons with BLLs greater than or equal to
25 g/dL reported quarterly and annually to ABLKS may reflect changes in 1)
year-to-year efforts of participating states and lead-using industries within them
to identify lead-exposed workers and to prevent new exposures; 2) occupational
exposures to lead: 3) compliance with OSHA requirements regarding blood lead
monitoring: and 4) workforce size in lead-using industries. Variations in
reporting might result from changes in staffing and funding in stale-based
surveillance programs, interstate differences in worker BLL testing by lead-using
industries, or random variations
References
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. "Adult Blood Lead
Epidemiology and Surveillance United States. 1998-2001."
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 5} (ss-11). 17 December
2002. Available online at:
http:. www.cdc.gov mmwr.PDF ssss511 l.pdf
The Certers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. 2001. "The Adult Blood Lead
Epidemiology' and Surveillance Program (ABLES)". 7 January 2003.
Available online at: hltpi/Avww.cdc.gov/niosh/ablcs.html
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999. "Adult Blood Lead
Epidemiology and Surveillance United States, Second and Third
Quarters, 1998, and Annual 1994-1997." Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 48 (10); 213-6.223.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. "ATSDR ToxFAQs: Lead"
7 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. 2000. Worker Health Chartbuok,
2000.1 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www2.cdc.gov/chartbook/CDplern/Chart hk(). htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH
EFFECTS
Level 3
Body
Hurdt-n/
L'prakc
Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator; Reported Cases of Vector-Borne Diseases
A vector-borne disease is an infectious agent that is transmitted
to humans by insect or rodent pests. Since the 1960s, the
transmission of these diseases has been prevented with the use
of vaccines and the application of pesticides. Vector-borne
diseases are more prevalent outside of the United States, in
countries with tropical environments and/or limited public health
resources. However, many of these diseases are imported into
the United States through immigration and international travel.
Malaria (mosquito-borne) is the most common imported vector-
borne disease: approximately 1,000 suspected malaria cases are
imported into the U.S. each year (Gubler 1998). Certain vector-
borne diseases are also endemic to the U.S., including West Nile
virus, (mosquito-borne), Lymc disease (tick-borne), encephalitis
(mosquito-borne), and Rocky Mountain spotted fever (tick-
borne).
In recent years, the U.S. has witnessed focal epidemics of
different strains of encephalitis and Lyme disease. Indeed.
scientists have detected a resurgence in vector-borne diseases in
many areas around the world (Gubler 1998). The reasons for
this resurgence include: the development of pesticide-resistance
in certain vectors; changes in public health policy; and human
activities such as urban sprawl and deforestation. This indicator
tracks the incidence of vector-borne diseases in the U.S. Trends
of increasing incidence would imply the need for environmental
health interventions, such as increasing pesticide applications or
developing safer and more effective pesticides for vector
control,
The West Nile virus is a new area of emphasis in preventing
vector-borne diseases. Since 2001, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) has collected human and animal
West Nile virus infection data through ArboNRT. a web-based,
surveillance data network, and state and local public health
agencies. Data are published weekly in the CDC's Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and are available at the
county, state, and national levels. Due to extreme variance in
state participation and values, no chart of West Nile virus data is
presented.
In 2001, 66 human cases of West Nile virus disease
were reported from 39 counties in 10 states (CDC,
2002b).
From January 1, 2002 to November 26, 2002, 3,737
human cases of West Nile virus disease were reported
from 39 states and the District of Columbia (CDC,
2002a).
The following chart depicts the annual number of reported cases
of Lyme disease, encephalitis, malaria and Rocky Mountain
spotted fever from 1983 to 2000.
The number of reported cases of Rocky Mountain
spotted fever has decreased by 56% since 1983.
The incidence of malaria displays a rising trend in the
1990s, with 1560 reported cases in 2000.
Since national surveillance began in 1991, the
incidence of Lyme disease has increased by nearly
87%. with 17,730 reported cases in 2000.
National surveillance of encephalitis ended in 1994, at
which time it displayed a trend of decreasing incidence.
Reported Cases of Vector-Borne Diseases,
1983-2000
w [2<«K) "
Z I IK "X) ||
fi W»K> '
3
^ domt '
n Ruckv Mountain
spoucii fever
: J VUkru
L\T»C disease
t*i -t
a
63
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: Since 1995, the national incidence ul'encephalitis has not been tracked by
ihc Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CIX'); it is no longer classified as
a notifiable disease. National summary data for Lyme disease is not available
before 1991.
Souree: CDC Summary of Notifiable [Diseases for the U.S.. 2000
Scale: Data are available on the local, county, state and national levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A notifiable disease is one for which
frequent and timely information about individual cases is considered necessary
for the prevention and control of the disease. Cases of noli liable diseases are
reported by stale ami local health units to the CDC Division of Public Health
Surve liance and Informatics through the National Electronic
Telecommunications System for Surveillance (NETSS). The reporting of
notifiable diseases is mandated by state and federal law.
It must be noted that the annual national summary figures for notifiable diseases
probably under-represenl the actual incidences. Persons with diseases that are
clinically mild (e.g.. salmoncllosis) might not seek medical care from a health
care p'ovider. Also, differences in case definition or the introduction of new
diagnostic tests can affect disease reporting, independent of the true incidence of
disease.
Data are reported annually in the CDC' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report at
the stale and national level and by age. sex. race ethnicity of the case.
References
Ciubler. Duane J. 1998. "Resurgent Vector-Home Diseases as a Global Health
Problem." Kmerging Infectious Dixeaft's. 4( }>.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002a. "West Nile Virus
Activity - United Slates, November 21 -26. 2002." Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 51(47>. 9 January 2003. Available online
at: http://www.cdc.govfmmwr PDlvwk/mm5147.pdf
The Ceiter for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002b. "West Nile Virus
Activity - United States, 2001." Morbidity ami Mortality Weekly
Report. 5i(23>. 9 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.edc.gov/nimwr/PDF/wk/inm5123 .pdf
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002c. "Summary of Notifiable
Diseases, United States, 2000." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report. 49153). 9 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4953.pdf
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
64
-------
Discharges/
(Emissions
Level 3
HUMAN HEALTH
SUBSISTENCE DIET
STATIi
Ambient
Gmciitions
Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
EFFItCTS
I [uman/
]i n^iciil
Health Risk |
Level 6
*"(1J;U'1' ^M
Level 7
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
isms/OKmimmm
Rc.m,kt,,ry" Acnt>nsb>'
Ri-sponsvs
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs J
Indicator: Number of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
To protect their citizens from health risks associated with the
consumption of contaminated fish and wildlife, states, the
national territories and Native American Tribes issue
consumption advisories. These advisories inform the public of
the existence of high levels of chemical contaminants in local
fish and wildlife. They suggest that consumption of such fish
and wildlife from specific water bodies or water body types be
restricted or avoided. Five types of advisories can be issued:
1. Restricted Consumption - General Population.
Chemical contamination is less severe and consumption
by the general public should be limited.
2. Restricted Consumption Sensitive Populations.
Chemical contamination is less severe and consumption
by sensitive populations should be limited.
3. No Consumption Sensitive Subpopulation. Chemical
contamination poses a health risk to sensitive
subpopulations (children, pregnant women, nursing
mothers),
4. No Consumption - General Population. Chemical
contamination creates a health risk to the general
public.
5. Commercial Kishing Ban. This advisory prohibits
commercial harvesting and sale of identified species of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife from designated water
bodies.
This indicator measures trends in the number of issued fish
advisories. Persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals -
mercury. PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT - were at least
partially involved in 99% of all advisories. Accordingly, this
indicator becomes an indirect measure of the dietary exposure to
PBTs of populations who follow a subsistence diet and consume
disproportionate amounts of fish and wildlife. Such groups
include: low-income people who fish and hunt for their own
food. Native American Tribes who have historically been high-
volume consumers of fish and wildlife, and individuals who
make the lifestyle choice to eat fish and wildlife in quantity.
The following charts display the trends in the number of issued
fish advisories from 1993 to 2000. Since 1993, the number of
issued advisories of all types has increased.
The largest increases have been for sensitive
populations. Between 1993 and 2000, no consumption
advisories for sensitive populations increased 155%
and advisories for restricted consumption for sensitive
populations increased by 162%.
The trend of no consumption advisories for the general
population has remained relatively stable.
Not reflected in the charts are the following facts:
The water bodies under restriction represent 15.8% of
the nation's total lake acres and 6.8% of the nation's
total river miles. All of the Great Lakes and their
connecting waters and 58.9% of U.S. coastal waters are
under advisory.
Advisories increased over the six-year period for
mercury, PCBs, and DDT. but decreased for dioxins
and chlordane.
Fish and Wildlife Advisories by Type,
1993-2000
I \'o (.'iinMimpt
I intent >\ip
o CortMLiiiption -
ciisnivc fop
Restnclcif I'ociMimptiort
- Sensitive 1'op
csincicd i'uiiMimpiiun
< iinKYii! l'i*p.
65
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Commercial Fishing Ban Advisories by Type,
1993-2000
Illlllll
199) 1994 1495 19%
Source: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA), National
Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program. KPA Office of Science and
Technology
Scale: Data are available at the state, regional, and national levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Included in the NLFWA database is
information regarding:
1. species and size range offish and/or wildlife,
2. chemical contaminants specified in the ad\isory,
3. geographic location of the advisory,
4. lake acreage or river miles included in the advisory, and
5. the population for which the advisory was issued.
From 1994 onward, maps can be generated al the national, regional, and stale
level for any combination of database components. Database versions following
1996 have the additional capacity to provide information on the percentage of
water bodies in each state under advisory and the percentage of water assessed.
From 1998 onward, the database includes information on fish tissue residue data
for 16 states.
References
U.S. Lnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 2001. Update:
National Listing offish and Wildlife Advisories. KPA Fact Sheet,
F.PA-823-F-01-010. 7 January 2003. Available online al:
http://www.cpa.gov/ost/llsh
U.S. Tnvironmenlal Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1999. Update:
National Liming of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. EPA Fact Sheet,
F.PA-823-F-99-005. 7 January 2003. Available online at:
hup:/'www epa.gov/ost/fish
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
66
-------
ENVIROMENTAI
ISSUE 2:
ECOLOGICAL
HEALTH
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Chronic and Acute Ecological Health Risk From Toxic Releases
Number of Terrestrial and Aquatic Incidents and Associated Mortalities from
the 15 Pesticides Causing the Most Wildlife Mortalities
Great Lakes Ecosystem
External Anomalies in Brown Bullhead Fish from the Great Lakes
PCB Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
DDE Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
Mirex Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
Dieldrin Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
Hexachlorobenzene Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
Concentrations of Total DDE in Bald Eagle Eggs from the Great Lakes
Concentrations of Total PCBs in Bald Eagle Eggs from the Great Lakes
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs from the Great Lakes
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting VVaterbirds
PAH Concentrations in Offshore Waters of the Great Lakes
Dieldrin Concentrations in Offshore Waters of the Great Lakes
Concentrations of Atrazine in Lake Michigan
Concentrations of PCBs in Lake Michigan
Concentrations of Mercury in Lake Michigan
Concentrations of Trans-Nonachlor in Lake Michigan
Arsenic Loadings to the Great Lakes
Lead Loadings to the Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Bald Eagle Population Count in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Contaminants in Maryland Oyster Tissue
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS CONTINUED
Kepone in Finfish Tissue in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Tributyltin Concentration Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Copper Concentration Levels in the Sediments of the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem
Concentrations of Lead and Copper in Precipitation of the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem
Benzo[alpyrene Concentration in the Sediments of the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants in the
Chesapeake Bay
Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants from Federal Facilities in
the Chesapeake Bay Region
Cropland Acres Under Integrated Pest Management in the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem
Pesticide Container Recycling Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Pesticide Collection and Disposal Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA)
PCB Levels in Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Blue Crabs
Concentrations of PCBs in Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Sediments
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment Program (MAHA)
Western Pilot Study
San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River-Delta Ecosystem
Estuarine and Great Lakes Program
National Coastal Assessment (Coastal 2000)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 2:
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
Most commonly, when people think about chemical contamination, they focus on human health
concerns. However, the health of wildlife, natural plant communities, and, indeed, the health
of entire ecosystems, are profoundly affected by toxic chemicals and pesticides. Toxic chemi-
cals and pesticides can affect wildlife and ecosystems at several levels. Large doses of suffi-
ciently toxic chemicals and pesticides can have acute, short-term effects resulting in high mor-
tality rates. Similarly, they may disrupt the food chain by selectively eliminating certain spe-
cies necessary as a food supply to other organisms. Chemical contamination may weaken
wildlife species, diminishing their ability to compete and survive. Over longer periods of time,
chemicals and pesticides, at relatively low doses, can have serious developmental impacts on
wildlife that may have long-term affects on the survivability of whole species. At the highest
level, chemical contamination can have broad, systematic effects across large, integrated ecosystems like the Everglades.
the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay.
Issue Dimensions
Flora and Fauna Impacts
The use or release of pesticides and toxic substances affects not only human health, but wildlife as well. The rapid growth
in the use of pesticides, beginning in the 1960"s and continuing to the present, has been accompanied by an increase in
wildlife impacts. The use of DDT, in particular, was associated with declines in bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown
pelicans. All of these bird species are predators that reaped the impacts of biomagnified DDT loadings. DDT caused the
thinning of egg shells and diminished the ability of eggs to survive. New pesticides were developed to avoid the persis-
tence of organochlorides, a class of pesticides that includes DDT. These replacement pesticides, however, while less
persistent, can also be more acutely toxic to wildlife in the near term. The effect of pesticides on fauna that serve as food
supply for others can reduce the ability of higher species to compete and survive.
Potentially more damaging on ecological health are the long-term effects of chemical and pesticide exposure. While some
pesticides may cause near immediate death, others may lead to a decline in health that will eventually lead to sickness,
death, and species decline. As with humans, pesticides and toxic chemicals can disrupt development processes in wildlife.
Such disruption can result in a variety of effects to include behavior changes, physical deformities, sexual and reproductive
dysfunction, and offspring mortality. Weakened wildlife may become easier prey or lose their ability to adapt to environ-
mental changes.
Preliminary information suggests that most pesticide-related avian mortalities result from pesticides used on corn, grapes.
rice, alfalfa, and from golf courses and home/lawn pesticides. Herbivorous waterfowl, followed by raptors, appear to be
most impacted. In the aquatic environment, fish appear to be most commonly reported in terms of mortalities, followed by
aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians.
Of particular concern are endangered species in the U.S. At present, there are 735 species of plants and 496 species of
animals listed as threatened or endangered. Given their small numbers, chronic or acute pesticide or toxic chemical
impacts can be particularly damaging.
Major Ecosystem Functioning
The presence of toxic substances and pesticides has the potential to disrupt the functioning of whole ecosystems. An
example of a major ecosystem affected by chemical pollution can be found in Florida's Everglades where mercury from
in '~~""'"
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II «. ....»>
-------
national and international air deposition, stormwater runoff, and from (he disturbance of mercury-bearing peat
has significant environmental impacts on the system. Additional research demonstrates that an international
deposition pathways provides the crucial additional increment of mercury. Mercury from Europe, and maybe
even China is being home to Florida where an unusual confluence of international airflows is leading to an
unusual mercury deposition process. Through the process of biornagnifiealion, mercury is being concentrated up
the food chain and is beginning to have systemwide effects on wildlife.
The Great Lakes Program has focused heavily on the role of chemical contaminants. For years the Great Lakes were the
recipient of huge amounts of chemicals and pesticides and the effects on wildlife were systematic and devastating. To
manage the restoration of the Great Lakes the Great Lakes Program and Environment Canada have jointly prepared a
series of excellent ecological indicators.
Similarly, the Chesapeake Bay suffered from long-term loading of chemicals from urban runoff and atmospheric depo-
sition. The Chesapeake Bay Program has identified toxic chemical contamination as one of the four top stresses on the
Bay. To support restoration efforts the program has developed 18 chemically-based indicators and have an additional 3
indicators under development. These indicators support a goal-driven, result-based management system that is a model
for ecosystem management.
Projects now underway in other areas of the country arc also looking at chemical impacts. The Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA). the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment Program (MAHA), the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin
River Delta Ecosystem Program, the Western Pilot Study, the National Coastal Assessment, and the Estuarine and
Greats Lakes Program (EAGLES) all have chemical contamination related elements. In several years when all of these
projects are fully functioning, the assessment and monitoring of chemical and pesticide related health effects and con-
tamination on a national scale will be possible.
71
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
FLORA AND FAUNA IMPACTS
PRESSURE
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Chronic and Acute Ecological Health Risk From Toxic Releases
At present there is little that is known about the direct
relationship between chemical or pesticide exposure and
ecological health effects that can be expressed in indicator
terms. Common measures intended to demonstrate chemical
effects on plants and animals include mortality estimates or
reports associated with chemical or pesticide exposure or
bioassay or body burden assessment.
Currently, the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Program
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can produce
estimates of chronic human health risk resulting from exposure
to toxic chemicals. These estimates are generated by applying
toxicity weights to each chemical among the releases found in
the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and by modeling the fate of
the chemicals and receptor population impacts to produce an
estimate of chronic human health risk. In another 18 months, a
modeling process capable of estimating acute human health
effects may be in place.
On the development horixon for the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators Program is the expansion of the
modeling process to include estimates of chronic and acute
ecological health risk resulting from exposure to TRI chemical
releases. At present, relatively little work has been done on the
development of the required models. Current expectations,
however, are that the model will function only in the aquatic
environment. Assuming maintenance of effort, the indicators
could be available in 3-4 years.
Notes: The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial numher of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRT database, by itself, is capable only of reporting the pounds
of chemicals released or transferred and cannot reflect human or ecological
health impacts. The Risk Screening Hnvironmcnta] Indicators project represents
an attempt to capitalize on the extensive chemical inventory that constitutes TRI
along with the flexibility and manipulability of the system by introducing
additional data elements to the system that allow assessments of loxicity. fate.
and size of receptor population. These modes integrate estimated toxicity scores
for individual chemicals and chemical categories with a measure of exposure
potential based upon reported multi-media release and transfer data and the size
of the potentially exposed general, non-worked population. The result is a
screening level, risk-related perspective for relative comparisons of chemical
releases. The flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to
examine trends, but also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic planning,
risk-related targeting, and community-based environmental protection.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can be viewed on the national level, as well
as by KPA regions, states, counties, cities, and zip codes.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which
chemicals enter into the ambient environment is through their release to air,
water, and land from facilities. A release is an on-sitc discharge of a toxic
chemical to the environment. This includes emissions to the air, discharges to
bodies of water, and releases at the facility to land and underground injection
wells. Releases to air arc reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment
leaks, evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
steam, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
tonic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the subsurface placement in a well. Depending on the concentrations
and length of exposure, human health effects from toxics may include cancer and
respiratory, developmental, and neurological conditions.
Also included in TRI are a variety of transfers of toxic chemicals. Transfers
include amounts transferred off site for recycling, energy recovery, treatment.
and disposal.
There are several limitations of the Toxic Release Inventory data. First, the TRI
captures only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than
10 full-time employees, and those thai do not meet the chemical thresholds, are
not required to file reports. Prior to 1998, non-manufacturing sectors included
were also not required to report. As of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining metal
mining, chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are additionally
required to report. Toxic emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial
sources are not accounted for in the TRI Secondly, TRI mandates the reporting
of estimated data, but does not require that facilities monitor their releases.
Hslimalioii techniques are used where monitoring data are not available. The use
of different estimation methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also,
some facilities may not fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can
affect data accuracy and completeness. Thirdly, there is an 18-month lag in time
from when data are collected and current release patterns. It is important to
recogni/e that release patterns can change significantly from year to year, so
current facility activities may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI
report. Lastly. TRI data can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks.
but release estimates alone are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of
the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow
assessments of human and ecological health risks.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
72
-------
References
IVVfi Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
November 2000. Printed copies arc also available and may be
ordered online from: U.S. E-PA / NSCEP. Altn.: Publicalion Orders.
P.O. Box 42419. Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419. Fax: (513) 489-X695.
Phone: (800) 490-9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http: //w ww. epa .go v/tri intcr/tri ilata'tri 98/pd r/ i ndex. htm.
"Risk Screening Knvironnienlal Indicaturs." Fact Sheet. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc>.
October!, 1999.
Tiixii'x Relt'iiM1 Inventory Relative Ki.ik-Baxt'tJ Environmental ImJicatum
Mt'ihodiilogy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
t'.w'.t Manual for EPA\ Risk Screening Environmental Inth'utor.i Mutlcl:
I'crxion I.(12. U'.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. November 15, 1999,
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Knvironmentul
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening [-Environmental
Indicators, may be viewed or downloaded at http://www.epa.gov.opptintrrsei;.
31 January 2003. To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSCA
Assistance Information Service. (202) 554-1404. Tsca-hollinef« epa.gov.)
73
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRESSURiv
Discharges/
I v missions
Level 3
STATK
Ambient
Conditions
Level 4
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
FLORA AND FAUNA IMPACTS
KFFECTS
W«.->;lal-.r!?5>"iMypKBM!«*Cfflit.«. "
Hoclv H Human
Burden/ f Hc<
I'ptake I Health Risk
Level S
Outcomes
Level rt
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
J
TYPEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Terrestrial and Aquatic Incidents and Associated
Mortalities from the 15 Pesticides Causing the Most Wildlife
Mortalities
As part of their response to the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). OPPTS
must set and measure goals relating to their performance in
achieving major dimensions of their mission. One of the areas
they identified as important is their success in protecting
wildlife from the effects of pesticides. Consequently, they are
presently in the process of utilizing an internally collected and
maintained data set - the Ecological Incident Information
System (EIIS) - to develop an indicator designed to measure
pesticide-related mortality incidents and total mortalities.
They are in the process of developing an indicator that
measures mortality incidents and mortalities for the 15
pesticides most commonly causing the most mortalities. The
information for the indicator is being provided by the EIIS.
Currently, this database contains over 3,000 incidents reported
by public agencies from around the nation. At present, data are
available only for aquatic systems and birds.
The pesticides under preliminary consideration are:
carbofuran, diaxinon, azinphos-mcthyl, chlorpyrifos,
cndosulfan, terbufos, fenthion. brodifacoum. parathion. methyl
parathion, atrazine, profenofos, famphur, 2,4-D, and
permethrin.
Summaries of FJIS data collected to date are found in the
attached tables. To date, the database contains 695 incidents of
aquatic mortality events caused by pesticides. Of these, 57%
were caused by just four of the listed pesticides: azinphos-
methyl, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, and lerbufos.
For avian species, there arc over 1160 incidents in the database.
Two insecticides carbofuran and diazinon are associated
with 55% of all incidents.
Data Characteristics aid I,irritations: The duly scl is still preliminary in its
development. The information is received from a variety of different
organizations from across the nation and very- uneven in quality. The certainty
of each incident is quite low. Furthermore, wildlife mortalities are surely
under-reported. The data should not be treated as a definitive count of wildlife
mortalities, hut more like a sample.
References
Mastrota. P.M. "Wildlife Mortality Incidents Caused By Pesticides." U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Mail Code 75070'. 401 M Street.
Washington. IXC.. 20460.
U.S. tnvirunmcntal Protection Agency. Office, of Prevention. Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances. 1999. fa-iilogical Ini'iJent Information System.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
74
-------
Table 1. Leading Pesticides Causing Aquatic Organism Mortalities in the United States
Active Ingredient
Axinphos-methyl
chlorpyrifos
enclosulfan
terbulos
toxaphene
atraxine
methyl parathiun
prolcnofos
2,4-1)
permethrin
peritaehlorophenol
Sublolal
Number of aquatic
incidents in EIIS
226
no
98
85-
37
30
26
23
22
20
18
695
Uses associated with majority of incidents
sugarcane and cotton
termiticide use
agricultural areas, lettuce, tobacco.
tomato, potato
corn
cotton (95% of incidents occurred
and 1989)
between 1970
corn (only 8 of these incidents listed as probable)
cotton (one fish kill involved 20 to 30 million fish)
cotton
agricultural areas
lerrnilicide. home lawn, corn
wood preservation
Table 2. Leading Pesticides Causing Avian Mortalities in the United States
Active
Ingredient
carbofuran
dia/inon
chlordane
fenthioM" "*
chlorpyrifos
hrodifacouin
parathion
fatnphur
Total
Number of avian
incidents in EIIS
Total
352
267
70
58
57
47"
45
31
927
Probable*
241
165
47
37
47
Aggregate
Number of
Carcasses
Reported
1Z.341
1434
5545
Z457
Uses associated with majority of incidents
grapes, corn, alfalfa (most granular uses
canceled in 1 9!) I)
lawns and turf (golf course use canceled in
1 989)
termitidde (use canceled in 1987)
avidde use. mosquito control
termiiicide. lawn and turf
rodent control
small grains, sunflower, alfalfa
livestock
* probable includes incidents that were convincingly linked to pesticide use and not linked to pesticide misuse
' "total includes recently received incidents not yet entered into 1'IIS
*' * avidde use voluntarily canceled on 3/1/99: use will be replaced by starlidde
75
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator: Great Lakes Ecosystem
The Great Lakes ecosystem represents an important and unique
ecosystem. Ft is the largest system of fresh water in the world
and provides many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA and
Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary to
track the progress of these initiatives.
Since 1994, the EPA and Environment Canada (EC) have held a
biennial conference, called the "State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference" (SOLEC). The purpose of these conferences is to
focus on the Great Lakes ecosystem and to identify the great
forces affecting it. Each of the four conferences held to date
have led to the production of a state of the lakes report.
From the beginning, the conferences and the work done between
conferences has focused energy on the development of indicator
frameworks and indicators capable of describing environmental
conditions in the Great Lakes. At the 1998 SOLEC conference,
79 candidate indicators were identified for eventual development
and harmonization. These indicators were arrayed across six
core groups. At SOLEC 2000, 25 of the indicators were
selected for display with data and trends. They represent the
first group of SOLEC indicators released for use. Shown below
are the six core groups and those indicators included in the
initial 79 candidate indicators reflecting pesticide and toxic
chemical concerns that are ready for use now. The remaining
indicators related to pesticide and chemical interests arc not
shown here since they are to be developed and released over the
next several SOLEC conferences.
1. Nearshore and Open Water Indicators
* Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumors in
Nearshore Fish
* Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
* Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
2. Coastal Wetland Indicators
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
3. Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
4. Human Health Indicators
Chemical Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
5. Land Use Indicators
Brownficld Redevelopment
6. Societal Indicators
This indicator system creates an excellent framework for
ecosystem indicator systems and serves as a model for other
ecosystem indicator developers. Because of the cooperation
between Canada and the U.S., the system further provides an
example of an indicator-driven transboundary environmental
management system that is well worth studying.
References
Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. 2000. Selection aj'Indicatorsfar Creat
Lakes Basin EcosvsU'ni Health: Version 4. State of the Lakes
l-'cosystem Conference.
[invirnnmunl Canada SOLEC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:/swww.on.ec.gc.ea'solcc;intro.html
Stadler-Salt, Nancy and Paul Bertram. 2000. Implementing Indicators: Draft for
Discussion al SOLI-C 2000.
U.S. EPA SOLEC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/grtlakes/solee
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
76
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
RL't!ulatory
Responses
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPE A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: External Anomalies in Brown Bullhead Fish from the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world
and provide many economic and ecological benefits lo the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the
U.S. and Canada. These activities have taken their
environmental toll on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and
pesticide run-off, and industrial wastes have deteriorated water
quality. In response to this, there have been many pollution
prevention and clean-up efforts sponsored by local
governments, the EPA and the Canadian government. Long-
term monitoring is necessary to track the progress of these
initiatives and to prevent any further degradation of the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator assesses the prevalence of external anomalies in
brown bullhead from the Great lakes. This type of indicator is
useful in identifying near shore areas that have populations of
benthic fish exposed to contaminated sediments. The presence
of contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern (AOCs) has
been linked to increases in the incidences of external anomalies
in benthic fish species, such as brown bullhead and white
suckers. The presence of these anomalies may be associated
with specific families of chemicals.
Notes: Data are not provided by date of publication.
Source: "State of the Lakes Kcosystem Conference 2000 Implementing
Indicators: Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2000." October 2000.
Scale: The (ireat Lakes and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: N/A
References
Bertram. Paul, and Stadler-Sall. Nancy. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4." State of the Lakes [{cosy-stem
Conference, March 2000.
Environment Canada SOI-KC. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.on.cc.gc.ca/solcc/intro.html
U.S. HPA SOLEC. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://vvww.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec
77
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level 3
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: PCB Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290.000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA and
the C'anadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator measures PCB levels in herring gull eggs from
each of the Great Lakes. PCBs are a small family of industrial
compounds that are environmentally persistent and
bioaccumulativc. They are good representatives for many of the
toxic organic compounds from human-originated sources and
are well suited for long-term ambient monitoring. It is
important to track the levels of PCBs in herring gull eggs
because they have been linked to developmental deformities in
birds (Francis 1994). Due to the nature of this chemical, its
toxicity to wildlife, and the status of the herring gull as a major
indicator species for the Great Lakes, this indicator provides a
good measure of the environmental quality of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
The chart displays the PCB levels in herring gull eggs at
sampled sites from each of the Great Lakes from 1977 to 1996.
Over the past 20 years, levels of PCBs in herring gull
eggs have dropped considerably from an average of
80.1 ppmin 1977 to 15.4ppmin 1996.
Since 1978, Lake Huron has consistently had the lowest
levels of PCBs in herring gull eggs, with only 10 ppm
in 1996.
There were "spikes" in the PCB levels in herring gull
eggs in the beginning of the 1980's and again in 1989.
PCB Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the
Great Lakes, 1977-1996
Luke Michigan
LiikcOnurii
Ijilc f r<
I akc Si.ficrkif
Ulkc Hur.m
iiliiilklllii^Ill
Vcar
Notes: Parts per million in whole egg samples, wet weight, hor Lake Michigan
in 1979. 19X1. and 1993, data were not available, f-'or these years, ihc levels of
PCBs were assumed to be the average of the levels for the years immediately
before and after (i.e.. 1978 and !980.~I980 and 19X2. 1992 and 1994). Data for
Lake Michigan lor 1996 are based on only one count per sampling site.
Source: Knvironmcnl Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Canada Centre
for Inland Waters. Data are found in the 1996 report of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Scale: The Great Lakes and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The measurement of contaminant levels
in herring gull eggs is one of the longest running wildlife monitoring programs
for contaminants in the world. Data are available annually dating baek to 1974.
References
"Contaminants in i lerring Gull Lggs from the Great Lakes: 25 Years of
Monitoring Levels and Effects." 31 January 2003. Available online
at: http://www.on.cc.gc.cu/wildlife/faclshccls'ls_ hemng_gulls-e.html
Environmental Quality Along the American River. The 19% Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Francis. B Magnus. To.xic Substances in the Environment, New York: John
Wiley & Sons. 1994.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
78
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Level 3
vFFlCCTS
ifilpwe
i;.ci >li i^ical
lirn;in
Health Risk lk-:ilih
Level 4
Level5
Outcomes
el 6
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Level 7
Regulatory
Responses
Level 1 I^evel 2
Outputs J
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: DDE Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off.
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the F,PA and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator measures DDE levels in herring gull eggs from
each of the Great Lakes. DDE is the breakdown product of the
banned pesticide DDT. Because DDE is persistent and
bioaccumulativc it is a good representative for pesticide
pollutants in the lakes and well-suited for long-term ambient
monitoring. It is important to track the levels of DDL in herring
gull eggs because DDE has been linked to hormone disruption,
reproductive failure, and eggshell thinning in birds (Newman
1998). Because of the nature of this chemical, its toxicity to
wildlife, and the status of the herring gull as a major indicator
species for the Great Lakes, this indicator provides a good
measure of the environmental quality of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
The chart displays the DDH levels in herring gull eggs at
sampled sites from each of the Great Lakes for 1977 to 1996.
Over the past 20 years, levels of DDE in herring gull
eggs have dropped considerably: from an average of 16
ppm in 1977 to 3 ppm in 1996.
Lake I-rie has consistently had the lowest levels of
DDH in herring gull eggs, with only 1.25 ppm in 1996.
Lake Michigan has consistently had the highest levels
of DDF in herring gull eggs, with 6.1 ppm in 1996.
DDE Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the
Great Lakes, 1977-1996
: I ..ke Fnc
. i Lake Hurra,
9 hike Superior
hike Ontario
hike Michigan
Notes: *Parts per million in whole egg samples, wet weight. For Lake Michigan
in 1979. 1981 and [99X data were not available. For these years, the levels of
1)1 >M were assumed to he the average of the levels for the years immediately
before and after (i.e.. I97X and 1980. 19X0 and 19X2. 1992 and 1994). Data for
Lake Michigan for 1996 arc based on only one count per sampling site.
Source: Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service and Canada Centre for
Inland Waters. Data found in the 1996 report of the Council on Knvironnienlal
Duality.
Data Characteristics and [.imitations: The measurement of contaminant levels
in herring gull eggs is one nf the longest running wildlife monitoring programs
for contaminants in the world. Data is available annually dating back to 1974.
References
"Contaminants in Herring Ciull liggs from ihc (ireat Lakes: 25 Years i>f
Monitoring Levels and Effects" 31 January'2003. Available online
at: hup: www on.ec.gc.ca wildlife faelsheels fs herring gulls-c.htmt
Liivironmental Quality Along the American Ri\cr. The 1996 Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Newman. Michael ('. Fundamentals of b'coloxicoloiiv. Michigan: Ann Arbor
Press. I99X.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
TYFEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Mirex Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA, and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator measures mirex levels in herring gull eggs from
each of the Great Lakes. Mirex was used as an insecticide to
control fire ants, and also as a fire retardant in plastics, rubber,
paint, paper, and electrical goods. Since 1978, the EPA has
canceled all uses of mirex. Mirex is a persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) pollutant targeted by the EPA.
Thus, it is well suited for long-term ambient monitoring. It is
important to track the levels of mirex in herring gull eggs
because it has been linked to harmful effects in birds and other
wildlife. Due to the nature of this chemical, its toxicity to
wildlife and humans, and the status of the herring gull as a major
indicator species for the Great Lakes, this indicator provides a
good measure of the environmental quality of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
The chart displays the mirex levels in herring gull eggs at
sampled sites from each of the Great Lakes from 1977 to 1996.
Over the past 20 years, levels of mirex in herring gull
eggs have dropped considerably from an average of
0.77 ppm in 1977 to 0.21 ppm in 1996.
Since 1978, Lake Ontario has consistently had the
highest levels of mirex in herring gull eggs, with 0.68
ppm in 1996.
Mirex Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the
Great Lakes, 1977-1996
I jke t >ntiirv
I akc J iun»n
- 1 jkt Superior
l^kc hrtt?
l-akc Mk'hiiuin
| i 5' 2 ?
I 5
Year
Notes: Parts per million in whole egg samples, wet weight. For Lake Michigan
in 1979, 19X1. and 1993, data were not available. Kor these years, the levels of
mirex were assumed lo he the average of the levels for the years immediately
before and after (i.e., 197S and 1980. 1980 and 19X2. 1992 and 1994). Data for
Lake Michigan for 1996 are based on only one count per sampling site.
Source: Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Canada Centre
for Inland Waters. Data are found in the 1996 report of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Scale: The Great Lakes and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The measurement of contaminant levels
in herring gull eggs is one of the longest running wildlife monitoring programs
for contaminants in the world. Data are available annually dating back to 1974.
References
"Contaminants in Herring Gull Kggs from the Great Lakes: 25 Years of
Monitoring Levels and Effects." 31 January 2003. Available online
at: http://www.on.cc.Kc.ca/wildlife/ractsheets/fs herring gulls-e.hlmi
Environmental Quality Along the American River. The 1996 Report of the
Council on Hnvironmcntal Quality.
EPA OPPTS fact sheet on rnirex. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
htlp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/mirex.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
80
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRKSSURF.
Level 3 Level 4 I-evel 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
^M
Actions
Regulatory
Responses
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Dieldrin Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA, and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator measures dieldrin levels in herring gull eggs from
each of the Great Lakes. Dieldrin is a persistent.
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) pollutant targeted by the F.PA.
It is an organochlorinc insecticide, so most of its uses have been
banned in C'anada and the U.S. Thus, it is well suited for long-
term ambient monitoring. It is important to track the levels of
dieldrin in herring gull eggs because it has been linked to
harmful effects in birds and other wildlife. Due to the nature of
this chemical, its loxicity to wildlife and humans, and the status
of the herring gull as a major indicator species for the Great
Lakes, this indicator provides a good measure of the
environmental quality of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The chart displays the dieldrin levels in herring gull eggs at
sampled sites from each of the Great Lakes from 1977 to 1996.
Over the past 20 years, levels of dieldrin in herring gull
eggs have dropped considerably from an average of
0.48 ppm in 1977 to 0.13 ppm in 1996.
Since 1978, Lake Michigan has consistently had the
highest levels of dieldrin in herring gull eggs, with 0.21
ppm in 1996.
There were "spikes" in the dieldrin levels in herring
gull eggs in the beginning of the 1980's and again in
the early 1990's.
1
£)')
().K
c f)~
i £)fi
? u<
r (u
a
0.
U.I
f) ^
0.1
'*
Dieldrin Levels in Herring Gull Eggs in the
Great Lakes, 1977-1996
- -i
l.afce Michigan
» l^ke Superior
LiikeHi,
w * \ske ()nt;irio
/\ . ' IjJccKn:
r ' \/' ', . ...'
"" . . "" "*"A ' f ' ' '/ \
' ' " - ' '-- ' "
v ! - '\
|??|?5iiSisilis ?'???'?
Vor
Notes: Parts per million in whole egg samples, wet weight. For Lake Michigan
in IL>79. 19X1. and I'W3. data were no! available. For these years, the levels of
dieldrin were assumed to be the average of the levels for the years immediately
before and after (i.e., 1978 and 1980, 19X0 and 19K2, S992 and 1994). Data for
Lake Michigan for 19% are based on only one count per sampling site.
Source: Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, and C'anada Centre
for Inland Waters. Data are found in the I°96 report of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Scale: The (ireat Lakes and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The measurement of contaminant levels
in herring gull eggs is one of the longest running wildlife monitoring programs
for contaminants in the world. Data are available annually dating back to 1974.
References
"Contaminants in Herring Gull Kggs from the Great Lakes: 25 Years of
Monitoring Levels and Effects." 31 January 2003. Available online
at: http://www.on.ec.gc.ea/wildlife/factsheets/fs_herring_gulls-e.htrnl
Environmental Quality Along the American Riser. The 1996 Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
81
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRKSSURE
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Hexachlorobenzene Levels in Herring Gull Eggs from the Great
Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world
and provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the
U.S. and Canada. These activities have taken their
environmental toll on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and
pesticide run-off, and industrial wastes have deteriorated water
quality. In response to this, there have been many pollution
prevention and clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments,
the EPA. and the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring
is necessary to track the progress of these initiatives and to
prevent any further degradation of the Greal Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator measures hexachlorobonzene (HCB) levels in
herring gull eggs from each of the Great Lakes. Past uses of
HCB include its use as a fungicide, in making ammunition and
fireworks, and in manufacturing synthetic: rubber. HCB is a
persisient, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) pollutant targeted
by the EPA. Thus, it is well suited for long-term ambient
monitoring. It is important to track the levels of HCB in
herring gull eggs because it has been linked to harmful effects
in birds and other wildlife. Due to the nature of this chemical.
its toxicity to wildlife and humans, and the status of the herring
gull as a major indicator species for the Great Lakes, this
indicator provides a good measure of the environmental quality
of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The chart displays the HCB levels in herring gull eggs at
sampled sites from each of the Great Lakes from 1977 to 1996.
* Over the past 20 years, levels of HCB in herring gull
eggs have dropped considerably from an average of 0.4
ppm in 1977 to 0.04 ppm in 1996.
Since the mid-1980's, the levels of HCB in herring
gull eggs have been similar across all of the Great
Lakes.
Hexachlorobenzene Levels in Herring Gull
Eggs from the Great Lakes, 1977-1996
0.9
ll.fi -
0.7 -
| IJ.6 -
I ,,.3
0.2 1
II. I -
0 ^
Lab-1 >n(ario
Lake Huron
Laki-I r>-
l^kr MK liigan
Lake Superior
-- i- -.^. < -
111
Year
Notes: Paris |>er million in whole egg samples, wel weiglil. For 1 ,ake Mulligan in
197rring_gulls e.html
Environmental Quality Along llm American River. The 1996 Report of the Council
on Environmental Quality.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
82
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
STATIi
EFFECTS
Level 4
L5
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
EFFECTS
Discharges/
Kmissions
Level 3
Level 4
Hotly
Burden/
Ipukc
Level 5
Outcomes
\
Human/
F.culogical
Health Risk
Level 6
Level 7
J
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
I
TVPEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Concentrations of Total PCBs in Bald Eagle Eggs from the Great
Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and C'anada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertili/er and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
One of the pollutants under study are polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). PCBs are a small family of industrial compounds that
are environmentally persistent and bioaccumulative. PCBs
comprise a variety of common substances which display a range
of physical and chemical properties (Francis 1994). For these
reasons, they are good representatives of the toxic organic
compounds from anthropogenic sources and are well-suited for
long-term monitoring.
This indicator tracks the concentration of PCBs in Bald Eagle
eggs. Monitoring the concentration of PCBs is important
because they have been linked to developmental malformations
in birds (Francis 1994).
Notes: Data not provided by date of publication.
Source: "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2000 Implementing
Indicators: Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2000." October 2000. SOLEC Web
Site: http:..\vw\v.on.ec.gc.tasolec tmpk-iTH.-ming2000-e.html
Scale: The Great Lakes and their watersheds
Data Characteristics and Limitations: N/A
References
Bertram, Paul, and Sladlcr-Salt, Nancy, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4," State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference, March. 2000.
Environment Canada SOLEC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:Vwww.on.ec.cc.ca, solcc.intro.html
I -'rands, B. Magnus. 1994. Toxic Substances in the Environment.
New York: John Wiley &Son*.
U.S. KPA SOLEC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes'solcc
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
84
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Discharges/
{.missions
Level 3
STATE
Ambient
Conditions
Level 4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
EFFECTS
I luman
Ideological
f Icalrh Risk
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TWEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs from the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) conferences are
hosted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Environment Canada on behalf of the two Countries every two
years in response to the binational Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The conferences are intended to provide a forum for
exchange of information on the ecological condition of the Great
Lakes and surrounding lands. The SOLEC process views the
ecosystem in terms of the state or "health" of the living system
and its underlying physical, chemical and biological
components. Human health is considered to be part of the living
system. SOLEC conferences arc intended to focus on the state of
the Great Lakes ecosystem and the major factors impacting ii
rather than the status of programs needed for its protection and
restoration. This is done through the use of environmental
indicators. The SOLEC indicators are intended to provide an
umbrella or overarching set which provide a general system
wide overview.
One of the SOLEC indicator tracks contaminant concentrations
in snapping turtle eggs from the Great Lakes. Snapping turtles
are ideal candidates as indicators of wetland health due to their
sedentary nature, their ability to accumulate high levels of
contaminants over their long life span, and their position as top
predators in the food chain.
Motes: Data not provided by date of publication.
Source: "Stale of the Lakes Kcosystem Conference 2000 Implementing
Indicators: Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2000," October 2000. SOLEC' Web
Site: http://www.oii.ec.gc.ca/solec/implemcnting2000-e.hlm!
Scale: The Great Lakes and their watersheds
Data Characteristics and Limitations: N/A
References
Bertram, Paul, and Stadler-Salt, Nancy, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4." State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference. March, 2000.
Environment Canada SOLI-'C Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:'"www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/intro.lunil
U.S. KPA SOI-KC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
TYPE A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Water Birds
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilixer and pesticide run-off.
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA, and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The indicator, contaminants in colonial nesting water birds, will
measure present chemical concentration levels and trends, as
well as ecological and physiological cndpoints in colonial birds,
such as gulls, terns, cormorants, and/or herons. This
information will help assess the impact of contaminants on the
health of the water bird populations. Of particular concern is the
physiology and breeding characteristics of the water birds. This
indicator will serve lo be exceptionally valuable since water
birds are at the top of the aquatic food web of predators in the
Great Lakes ecosystem. Thus, they bioaccumulate contaminants
to the greatest concentration and they breed in all the Great
Lakes. This will allow for easy comparisons among the lakes.
The main objective of examining colonial water birds on the
Great Lakes is to note at what point there is no difference in the
chemical and biological parameters between colonial water birds
from the Great Lakes and those off the Great Lakes. This will
be essential in recognizing when the clean-up goal has been
achieved.
Notes: Data not provided by date of publication.
Source: "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2000 Implementing
Indicators: Draft for Discussion at SOLKC 2000." October 2000.
Scale: The (ireat Lakes and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: N A
References
Bertram. Paul, and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4." Slate of the Lakes Kcosystem
Conference. March 2(100.
Environment C'anada SOLKC. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
hllp:','www.on.ec.ge.ca. solcc. imro.htm!
U.S. EPA SOLIiC. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
htlp: Vwww.epa.gov yrtlakes solcc
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
86
-------
Level 3
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
f Icaltli Risk |
Level 6
Actn ins by
Regulated
Oimmutiitv
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
I Outputs [
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: PAH Concentrations in Offshore Waters of the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off.
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the HPA and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of over
one hundred different chemicals that are formed during the
incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, garbage, or other organic
substances like tobacco and charbroiled meat. PAHs enter water
through discharges from industrial and wastewatcr treatment
plants. Once in water, they do not dissolve easily, but stick to
solid particles and settle to the bottom of lakes and rivers. It is
important to monitor the levels of PAHs in the environment
because animal tests show that PAHs affect reproduction by
causing higher rates of birth defects and lower birth rates. They
can also cause harmful effects on the skin, body fluids, and the
ability to fight diseases after both short- and long-term exposure.
The Department of Health and Human Services has determined
that some PAHs are expected carcinogens.
This indicator tracks the concentrations of PAHs in offshore
waters of the Great Lakes.
Notes: Data noi provided by date of publication.
Source: "State of the Lakes Lcosystcm Conference 2000 Implementing
Indicators: Draft for Discussion at SOLEC 2000," October 2000. SO1.1-C Web
Sile: http://www.Mn.oc.gc.ea/solcc/implcmcnting2000-c.htnil
Scale: The Great Lakes and their watersheds
Data Characteristics and Limitations: N/A
References
Bertram. Paul, and Stadler-Salt. Nancy. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ixosystem Health: Version 4." State of the Lakes Kcosvstem
Conference. March. 2000.
Environment Canada SOl.IiC Web Sile. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
hup: www.on.ec.gc.ca. solec intro.htmJ
U.S. F.PA SOLliC Weh Site. 31 January-2003. Available online at:
http: w ww.epa.gov. grtlakes/solec
87
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Dieldrin Concentrations in Offshore Waters of the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Dieldrin is an organochlorine insecticide; most of its uses have
been banned in Canada and the United States. It is a persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutant (PBT) targeted by the EPA,
making it well-suited for long-term ambient monitoring. It is
important to track the concentrations of dieldrin in the
environment because it has been linked to harmful effects in
birds and other wildlife, including liver damage and immuno-
suppression. The EPA considers dieldrin to be a probable
carcinogen in humans.
This indicator tracks the concentrations of dieldrin in offshore
waters of the Great Lakes.
Notes: Data not provided by date of publication.
Source: "State of the Lakes Kcosystem Conference 2000 Implementing
Indicators: Draft for Discussion at SOLtC 2000," October 2000. SOLEC Web
Site: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/implementing2000-e.html
Scale: The Great Lakes and their watersheds
Data Characteristics and Limitations: N/A
References
Bertram, Paul, and Stadlcr-Sall, Nancy, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4," State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference, March, 2000.
Environment Canada SOLEC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec'intro.html
U.S. EPA SOLEC Web Site. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/grtlakes/solec
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
88
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level?
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs |
TYPE A
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Concentrations of Atrazine in Lake Michigan
Lakes are unique ecosystems that act as "pollutant sinks." For
instance, a drop of water entering Lake Michigan today will
remain in Lake Michigan for an average of 100 years before it
cither evaporates or washes into Lake Huron through the Straits
of Mackinaw. To study the pollution of Lake Michigan, the
EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) began the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) project in 1994. A mass
balance study is based on the simple principle that the amount of
a pollutant entering an ecosystem should equal the amount of
that pollutant exiting, persisting, or chemically changed in that
ecosystem. Using this mass balance model, the loading,
transport, and fate of four chemical pollutants in Lake Michigan
are being studied.
One of the pollutants under study is atrazine. Atra/ine is the
most widely used herbicide in corn and sorghum production in
the U.S. In 1999, 54.7 million pounds of active ingredient of
atrazine were applied to 68.3 million acres of corn. These
treated acres represent 70% of all corn acres in the U.S. (USDA
NASS 2000). Because of its widespread use, alra/dne is
presently a good representative compound for less persistent
herbicides. However, since the use of atrazine is declining, in
the future it will be necessary to track the loading, transport, and
fate of new pesticide compounds on the market.
Monitoring the ambient concentration of atrazine and tracking
its transport and fate are important since it has been identified by
the EPA as a potential human carcinogen. Atra/ine is a
restricted-use compound; however, its sale and purchase is more
strictly regulated in some states than in others.
Notes: Data not provided by dale of publication.
Source: KPA Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.
Scale: Lake Michigan and ils watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The complete set of data from the
LMMH project is not yet available. The data arc currently undergoing
verification and validation, however, select subsets of data have already been
made available.
The results of the LMMB project constitute a discrete data set. It has not been
stated whether the EPA Great Lukes National I'rogram Office will continue
tracking the concentrations of transported atrazine in Lake Michigan. Continued
tracking would support the OPPTS objective and also the KPA's Lake Wide
Management Plan (LaMP 2000) for Lake Michigan.
References
Hl'A Lake Michigan Mass Balance. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/indcx.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Agricultural Chemical Usage. Field Crop Summary 1999. Released
May 2000.
89
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Discharges/
I Emissions
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Mantstique
Indicator: Concentrations of PCBs in Lake Michigan
Lakes are unique ecosystems that act as "pollutant sinks." For
instance, a drop of water entering Lake Michigan today will
remain in Lake Michigan for an average of 100 years before it
either evaporates or washes into Lake Huron through the Straits
of Mackinaw. To study the pollution of Lake Michigan, the
EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) began the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) project in 1994. A mass
balance study is based on the simple principle that the amount of
a pollutant entering an ecosystem should equal the amount of
that pollutant exiting, persisting, or chemically changed in that
ecosystem. Using this mass balance model, the loading,
transport, and fate of four chemical pollutants in Lake Michigan
arc being studied.
One of the pollutants under study is polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCBi. PCBs arc a small family of industrial compounds that
are environmentally persistent and bioaccumulative. PCBs
comprise a variety of common substances that display a range of
physical and chemical properties. For these reasons, they are
good representatives for many of the toxic organic compounds
from human-originated sources and arc well suited for long-term
ambient monitoring.
Monitoring the ambient concentration of PCBs and tracking
their transport and fate arc important since PCBs have been
identified by the EPA as a bioaccumulative chemical of concern
(BCC). PCBs have been linked to reproductive problems in
turtles (Bergeron et al. 1994), developmental malformations in
birds (Francis 1994), and found to reduce the photosynthetic
activity of plants (Doust ct al. 1994). Although the EPA has
restricted the widespread use of PCBs. the compounds arc
legally allowed in some electrical transformers and small
capacitors found in fluorescent lamps, televisions, and other
appliances.
Fox
ffaetj
100-ri r
75-
50-
L Menominee
X-
J Sheboygan
25- %
| Muskegonc
0 h
PCBB (k»>r) ^Milwaukee
WISCONSIN
-ILLINOIS"
Pere
^ManjuBtte
Ftivor
-f1
/^
v/
gfirand Rapids
J-kalamaioo
Si. Joseph R
fl
MICHIGAN,
"INDIAN*
Indiana
Hattxr
Canal
Notes: Data not provided by dale of publication.
Source: KPA Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.
Scale: Lake Michigan and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The complete set of data from the
LMMB project is not yet available. The data are currently undergoing
verification and validation, however, select subsets of data have already been
made available. The figure above graphically depicts average annual PCB
loadings into Lake Ylichigan from April 1994 through October 1995.
The results of the LMMB project constitute a discrete data set. It has not been
stated whether the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office will continue
tracking the concentrations of transported atrazine in Lake Michigan. Continued
tracking would support the OPPTS objective and also the HPA's Lake Wide
Management Plan
-------
Doust, J.L. et al. "Biological Asscssmcnlion of Aquatic Pollution." Cilcd in
fundamentals of licotoxicology. Michael (_'. Newman. Ann Arbor:
Sleeping Bear Press. 1998.
HPA Lake Miehigan Mass Balance. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/index.html
Francis. B. Magnus. 1W4. Toxic Substances in the Environment. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
91
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level3
Level 4
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
LevelS
Outcomes
J
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
J
Indicator: Concentrations of Mercury in Lake Michigan
Lakes are unique ecosystems that act as "pollutant sinks." For
instance, a drop of water entering Lake Michigan today will
remain in Lake Michigan for an average of 100 years before it
either evaporates or washes into Lake Huron through the Straits
of Mackinaw. To study the pollution of Lake Michigan, the
EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) began the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) project in 1994. A
mass balance study is based on the simple principle that ihe
amount of a pollutant entering an ecosystem should equal the
amount of that pollutant exiting, persisting, or chemically
changed in that ecosystem. Using this mass balance model, the
loading, transport, and fate of four chemical pollutants in Lake
Michigan are being studied.
One of the pollutants under study is mercury. Mercury is a
naturally occurring metal that commonly used in many
consumer products, such as batteries, barometers.
thermometers, switches and fluorescent lamps. Releases of
mercury in the environment occur naturally and as a result of
human activity. The EPA estimates that about 11,000 metric
tons of mercury are released annually to the air, soil, and water
through human activity. In media, mercury has been found to
be persistent and bioaccumulatiw.
Monitoring the ambient concentration of mercury and tracking
its transport and fate are important because mercury is a known
neurotoxicant (Francis 1994). Mercury compounds are highly
poisonous to most organisms and have been identified as human
developmental toxicants (ibid.).
Combined
Tributary Loadings
186kg/yr
Manisiique
Fox
River,
40-
30-
20-
lOh
0-
Mercury (kgtyr)
Menominee
Sheboygan
1 Muskegonm
Milwaukee
WISCONSIN
25 SO
St. Joseph
IP Indiana
\ Harbor
I Canal
Kgrand Rapids
JKalamazoo
MICHIGAN
_ ,
|
\
Notes: Data not provided by dale of publication.
Source: EPA Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.
Scale: 1 ,;ike Michigan and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The complete set of data from the LMMB
project is not yet available. The dala are currently undergoing verification HIK)
validation, however, selec! subsets of dala have already been made available. The
figure above graphically depicts average annual mercury loadings into Lake
Michigan from April 1994 through October 1995.
The results of the LMMB project constitute
-------
References
EPA Lake Michigan Mass Balance. 31 January 2003. Available online al:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmh/indcx.htm1
Francis, B. Magnus. 1994. Toxic Substances in Ihc F.nvironmcnl. New York:
John Wiley& Sons.
93
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level 3
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Level 4
Level
Outcomes
Level 7
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
V, '«.**C,
Actions b
Regulated
Cotnmunitv
Repulatory
Responses
t
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs \
\.: -.+ ' ' i- -a. vf ;.-'* VMBT »».-- W:
TYPE A
TOPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Concentrations of Trans-Nonachlor in Lake Michigan
Lakes are unique ecosystems that act as "pollutant sinks." For
instance, a drop of water entering Lake Michigan today will
remain in Lake Michigan for an average of 100 years before it
either evaporates or washes into Lake Huron through the Straits
of Mackinaw. To study the pollution of Lake Michigan, the
EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) began the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) project in 1994. A mass
balance study is based on the simple principle that the amount of
a pollutant entering an ecosystem should equal the amount of
that pollutant exiting, persisting, or chemically changed in that
ecosystem. Using this mass balance model, the loading,
transport, and fate of four chemical pollutants in Lake Michigan
are being studied.
One of the pollutants under study is trans-nonachlor. Trans-
nonachlor is a constituent compound of chlordanc. Chlordane is
a chlorinated hydrocarbon that was originally registered as a
pesticide in 1948: however, the HPA canceled all commercial
use of chlordane in 1988. Especially in aquatic environments,
chlordane is persistent and bioaccumulative. Trans-nonachlor is
the most bioaccumulative compound of the chlordanes
exceeding human health guidelines in fish tissue. For this
reason, it is a good representative of the cyclodiene class of
pesticides.
Monitoring the ambient concentration of cyclodiene pesticides
(via the proxy measure of trans-nonachlor) and tracking their
transport and fate are important since cyclodicnes are known
neurotoxicants (Francis 1994). C'yclodiencs have been linked to
fish kills, chronic poisoning of applicators, and behavioral
abnormalities and cancers in mammals (ibid.).
Notes: Data not provided by date of publication.
Source: EPA Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.
Scale: Lake Michigan and its watersheds-
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The complete set uf dala from tie
l.MMB project is not yet available The data are currently undergoing
verification and validation, however, select subsets of data hase already been
made available. The figure above graphically depicts average annual tran;c-
nonachlor loadings into Lake Michigan from April 1994 through October l'W5.
The results of the L.MMB project constitute a discrete data scl. It has not been
staled whether the El'A Great Lakes National Program Office will contirn e
tracking Ihc concentrations of trans-nonachlor in Lake Michigan. Continued
(racking would support the OPPTS objective and also the KPA's Lake Wide
Management Plan (LaMP 2000) for Lake Michigan.
References
KPA Lake Michigan Mass Balance. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/index.hlm!
Francis, B. Magnus. 1994. Toxic Substances in Ihc Knvironmem. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
94
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Discharges/
F.missions
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 1
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Arsenic Loadings to the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off.
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the EPA, and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary to
track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any further
degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) was
created under the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement for the purpose of identifying airborne toxic
substances, identifying their sources, and estimating their
deposition to the CJrcat Lakes. The IADN measures the loadings
of atmospheric contaminants into the Lakes through wet
deposition, dry deposition, and gas exchange.
One of the chemicals of concern is arsenic. Arsenic is an
element that occurs in the earth's crust. Accordingly, there are
natural sources of exposure, including the weathering of rocks,
the erosion of depositing arsenic in water bodies, and the uptake
of the metal by animals and plants. People may also be exposed
to industrial sources, as arsenic is used in semiconductor
manufacturing, petroleum refining, wood preservatives, animal
feed additives, and herbicides. Arsenic can combine with other
elements to form inorganic and organic arsenicals. In general.
inorganic arsenicals arc considered more toxic than the organic
forms. While food contains both inorganic and organic
arsenicals, primarily inorganic forms are present in water.
Exposure to arsenic at high levels poses a serious health risk
because it is a known human carcinogen. In addition, it has been
reported to affect the vascular system in humans and is
associated with the development of diabetes.
This indicator tracks the amount of arsenic (kg/yr) being loaded
into the Great Lakes through wet and dry deposition from 1992
to 1996.
Lake Huron has the highest levels of arsenic loadings of
any of the five Great Lakes.
After an initial decrease from 1992 to 1995, arsenic
loadings increased in 1996 to 5,600 kg/yr in Lake
Huron.
Atmospheric Loadings of Arsenic into the
Great Lakes, 1992-1996
HtKXJ
Lake Superior
Liikc Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake hric
Lake Ontario
1*W4
Year
95
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: Loadings reflect the sum of wet and dry deposition into the lakes. A
missing value means that a loading could not bo calculated, not that no loading
occurred. This measure docs not take into account the size differences among
the (ircat Lakes,
Sourci;: Environment Canada and the EPA. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Substances to the Great lakes: 1ADN Results in
Scale: The Great Lakes and ils watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The IADN monitoring system
comprises five master stations (one at each Great Lake) and fourteen satellite
stations. Several instruments arc grouped at each site to collect air and rain
samples. In IADN, three deposition processes arc considered: wet deposition by
precipitation, dry particle deposition by sedimentation, and net diffusive gas
exchange. These processes account for the effects of air to water absorption and
water to air volatilization. The data reported in this indicator reflect work from
the first phase of IADN, which was conducted from l<>90 to 1996. The second
phase of IADN, preliminary data from which are not yet available, is scheduled
to run until 2004. No major changes to IADN arc anticipated.
References
Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4." Slate of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference, March 2000.
Environment Canada SOLEC. 2001. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solcc/intro.hlml
Stadler-Salt, Nancy and Paul Bertram. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 2000 Implementing Indicators: Draft for Discussion at
SOLEC 2000." October 2000.
U.S. lil'A OPPT. 2001. 3 1 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead'
U.S. EPA SOLEC. 2001. 3 1 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/grtlakcs/solcc/
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
96
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level?
J
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Lead Loadings to the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes compose an important and unique ecosystem.
They represent the largest system of fresh water in the world and
provide many economic and ecological benefits to the
surrounding areas. The Great Lakes basin, which includes the
lakes and over 290,000 square miles of land that drains into
them, supports concentrated industry and agriculture for the U.S.
and Canada. These activities have taken their environmental toll
on the Great Lakes as sewage, fertilizer and pesticide run-off,
and industrial wastes have deteriorated water quality. In
response to this, there have been many pollution prevention and
clean-up efforts sponsored by local governments, the HPA, and
the Canadian government. Long-term monitoring is necessary
to track the progress of these initiatives and to prevent any
further degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (1ADN) was
created under the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement for the purpose of identifying airborne toxic
substances, identifying their sources, and estimating their
deposition to the Great Lakes. The IADN measures the loadings
of atmospheric contaminants into the Lakes through wet
deposition, dry deposition, and gas exchange.
Lead is a highly toxic metal that produces a range of adverse
health effects, particularly in young children. Exposure to
excessive levels of lead can cause brain damage, affect a child's
growth, damage kidneys, impair hearing, cause vomiting,
headaches, appetite loss, and behavioral problems. In adults,
lead poisoning can lead to increased blood pressure, digestive
problems, kidney damage, nerve disorders, sleep disorders,
muscle and joint pain, and mood disorders.
This indicator measures the amount of lead (kg/yr) being loaded
into the Great lakes through wet and dry deposition from 1992
to 1996.
Lake Huron has the highest level of lead deposition of
all five Great Lakes.
After an initial decrease from 1992 to 1995, lead
deposition rose to 31,000 kg/yr in lake Huron.
Lead deposition in lake Ontario has been decreasing
since 1992.
Atmospheric Loadings of Lead into the Great
Lakes, 1992-1996
liMKKHI
^. xoooii
be
I;ikcHuron
Uikcfcre
Like Onl;irin
l'W4
Year
lUUTUH HlENCt
97
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: Loading reflects the sum of wet and dry deposition into the lakes. A
missir.g value means that a loading could not be calculated, not that no loading
occurred. This measure does not take into account the size differences among
the Great Lakes.
Source: Ifnvironmenl Canada and the EPA. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Suhm&nccs to the Great Lakes: tADN Results ti> 1996.
Scale: The Great Lakes and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The IAON monitoring system
comprises five master stations (one at each Great Lake) and fourteen satellite
stations. Several instruments arc grouped at each site to collect air and rain
samples. In IADN, three deposition processes are considered: wet deposition by
precipitation, dry particle deposition by sedimentation, and net diffusive gas
exchange. These processes account for the effects of air to water absorption and
water to air volatilization. The data reported in this indicator reflect work from
the firs: phase of IADN, which was conducted from 1990 to 1996. The second
phase cf IADN, preliminary data from which arc not yet available, is scheduled
to run until 2004. No major changes to IADN are anticipated.
References
Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadlcr-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health: Version 4." Stale of the Lakes Ecosystem.
Conference, March 2000.
Environment Canada SOLEC. 2001. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solcc/intro.html
Stadlcr-Sall, Nancy and Paul Bertram. "Slate of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 2000 Implementing Indicators: Draft for Discussion at
SOLEC 2000." October 2000.
U.S. EPA OPPT. 2001. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/opptintr/lcad/
U.S. EPA SOLEC. 2001. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec'
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator Set: Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and.
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive led to (he creation in 1983 of the initial
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The goal of this
partnership was to focus on the restoration of (he Bay and its
living resources.
Over its 17 years of operation, this partnership has created a
model ecosystem planning and management system firmly based
in measurable goals, monitoring, and adaptive management. At
the core of their efforts is an extensive system of environmental
indicators that thoroughly document and measure every
significant aspect of the Bay's health. These indicators are used
to support a broad system of goals, management activities, and
public information. It may be the premier example of an
ecosystem management system currently operating in the United
States.
The Program has identified 4 top stresses on the Bay:
Lixcess nutrients
Toxic chemical contaminants
Air pollution
Landscape changes
From the perspective of chemicals and pesticides, the current
indicators list includes:
Bald Eagle Population Count
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chemical
Contaminants
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants from
Federal Facilities
Cropland Acres Under Integrated Pest Management
Pesticide Collection and Disposal Programs
Pesticide Container Recycling Programs
Kcpone in Finfish Tissue
Declines in Maryland Oyster Tissue Contaminants
Tribulyltin Concentration Levels
Trends in Rainfall Metals Concentrations
Copper Concentrations in Sediments
Copper Concentrations in Sediments
Benzofa] pyrcne Concentrations in Sediments
This array of indicators provides a solid foundation for
describing the chemical contaminants condition of the Bay.
Awaiting completed/awaiting approval or revision approval are
the following indicators:
Ambient Toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay, Water
Column Data
Ambient Toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay, Sediments
Data
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Index for Sediments
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http: 'www.ehesapeakebay.net/index.htm
l-'nvironmcnt Outcome-Based Management: Using Environmental Goals and
Measures in the Chesapeake Hay System. I{PA 903-99-014.
CHP/TRS 223/99, July 1999. 31 January'2003. Available online at:
http: ,, \v\v\v.ehesapeak cbay.net, pubs.indpub indpub htm
Toxics Indicators List. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http: \v\v\v.ehesapeakebay.net.status t. index.htm
99
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Level 3
Level 4
Levels
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TMPEA
TVTEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Bald Eagle Population Count in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
As many as 3,000 pairs of bald eagles once inhabited the
Chesapeake Bay region. Their numbers declined dramatically
due to habitat destruction, shooting, and contamination by DDT
and other chemicals. DDT contamination caused the eggshells
to become brittle, and fewer young were hatched. In 1977, only
72 nests were found in the entire Chesapeake watershed. With
the ban on DDT in 1972, along with other habitat improvements,
the bald eagle has made a comeback. The bald eagle was
officially down listed from endangered to threatened in July of
1995.
This indicator measures the number of fledgling bald eagles and
active nests in the Chesapeake Bay basin from 1977 to 2000.
The number of active nests in the basin increased
from 72 in 1977 to 533 in 2000.
Bald Eagle Population Count in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1977-2000
I -<«
N*' S*' N*
Vear
Source: The Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and Us watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The totals from 1977 to 1999 include
only the Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia portions of the Chesapeake Bay
basin. The total for 2000 includes those portions and the Washington D.C.
portion. 2000 was the first year that an active nest and a fledgling were reported
for the Washington D.C. portion of the basin.
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
httpiA'www. chesapeakebay.net/index. htm
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Environmental Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:''www.chesapciikcbay.net/pubs/indpub/indpub.htm
The number of fledging eagles in the
increased from 63 in 1977 to 813 in 2000.
basin
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
100
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
TWEA
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level?
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Contaminants in Maryland Oyster Tissue
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse.
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acrc
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to locus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
Mercury and chlordane arc measured in oyster tissue from the
Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay mainstream. These are
metals that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulativc pollutants.
They affect the water quality and the health of fish and wildlife
in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. They can also affect human
health through the ingestion of contaminated food sources.
This indicator measures mercury and chlordane concentrations
in Maryland oyster tissue from 1974 to 1990.
* Mercury concentrations in oyster tissue have decreased
77% between 1974 and 1990.
* Chlordane concentrations in oyster tissue have
decreased 98% between 1974 and 1990. Chlordane
levels were below the detectable levels in 1990.
Mercury Concentrations in Maryland Oyster
Tissue, 1974-1990
a no:
g o.oi
Chlordane Concentrations in Maryland Oyster
Tissue, 1974-1990
101
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: The Chesapeake Bay Program.
Notes: In 1990, chlordane levels were below detectable levels.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data after 1990 are not presently
available.
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003 Available online at:
http://www.chesapeakcbay.net/index.htm
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Envirunment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Environmental Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/indpub/indpub.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
102
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURK
Actions bv
Regulated
Cornmunin
TVPEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Kepone in Finfish Tissue in the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse.
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acrc
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the I970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
Kepone is a toxic organochlorine insecticide formerly used in
ant and roach traps. Its use has been banned because it is a
suspected endocrine disruptor. An estimated 90,720 kg of
kepone was released to the environment through atmospheric
emissions, wastewater discharges, and bulk-disposal of off-
specification batches. In 1975, sections of the James River and
its tidal tributaries were closed to commercial and sport fishing
because of kepone contamination exceeding FDA specifications.
This fishing ban has since been lifted, but fish consumption
advisories are still in effect for the James and its tributaries up to
the fall line at Richmond, Virginia.
This indicator measures kepone in finfish tissue from Spot,
Croaker, and Bluefish taken from the James River from 1976 to
1994.
Kepone concentration levels have decreased below the
Food and Drug Administration Action Level of 0.3
ppm for all three species of fish. However, a few
sampled fish are still found to have levels above 0.3
ppm, which is why the consumption advisory remains
in effect.
Kepone Concentrations in Finfish Tissue,
1976-1994
, \
,- r: x z §
Year
Sou rcc: The Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Hay and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data after 1*>94 are not presently
available.
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
htlp:;;www.chesapeakcbay.net/indcx.htm
Endocrine Disrupter Serccning Program. 2001. liPA: Office of Scienee
Coordination and Policy. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:,V www.cpii.gnv/oscpmonl/oscpcndo/whatis.Ji tin
L'.S 1 Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Knvinmment OnK.-ome-Ka.'ii'il
Management: L'siitji Environmental Gitalx and Mcasure.i in the
Chesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003, Available online at:
http: \vww.chesapeakehay.nel/pubsfindpub/indpub.htm
103
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Tributyltin Concentration Levels in the Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
Tributyltin (TBT) is an ingredient in anti-fouling paints that was
commonly used by boaters to keep boat hulls free of barnacles,
algae, and other marine organisms. In time, TBT in the paint
leaches into the surrounding waters. TBT is associated with the
curling of oyster shells into a ball form instead of a flatter shape.
TBT is also toxic to other bay life forms such as plankton and
mollusks. A national restriction on the use of TBT in
antifouling paints was enacted in 1988, but TBT is still found in
the environment. The International Commercial Fleet still uses
TBT, but the ships move almost all the time, so the leachate has
few local effects. It is also legal to use TBT on aluminum-
hulled boats or commercial vessels over 27 meters; as well as on
motor outdrives and crab pots.
This indicator measures the TBT concentrations at a marina in
Hampton Roads, Virginia from 1986 to 1992, and at four
stations in Sarah Creek, Virginia from 1986 to 1991. Virginia
has a chronic Water Quality Standard for TBT in estuarine
waters of 1 part per trillion (ppt). Though generally declining,
the recorded concentrations in Hampton Roads and Sarah Creek
are still high enough to pose a risk to certain Bay organisms
such as plankton and mollusks.
* Between 1986 and 1992, there was an overall decrease
in TBT levels of 73% at the Hampton Roads, Va.
testing site. However, there was an 18 ppt increase in
TBT levels between 1991 and 1992.
Overall, TBT levels at the Sarah Creek, Va. sites have
decreased between 1986 and 1991. However, there
was a slight increase in TBT levels at testing station D.
Tributyltin Water Column Concentration
Levels at Hampton Roads, Va.,
1986-1992
Tributyltin Water Column Concentration
Levels at Four Stations in Sarah Creek, Va.,
1986-1991
13 Sarah D
19K7 I9SH I9K1 19"» I9SI
Year
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
104
-------
Source: The Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds.
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.che5apeakebay.net/inilex.htm
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Environmental Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp://w w w.chesapeakebay. net/pu hs/i ndpub/indpub .htm
105
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Level 5
Outcomes
EFFECTS
*!Htfl»Mi«iT V-t .
I luman/
Ideological
Health Risk
Level 6
t SOCIETAL RESPONSE ^
r-wm.umi.ii.inninii.nv^^k
Regulatory I Acrit>"s!>V §
Responses | Related |
CommunilY I
I " ""
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
I
Level 1
Outputs
J
TOTEA
TYPEB
TVPEC
Indicator: Copper Concentration Levels in the Sediments of the Chesapeake
Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States" largest estuary and,
with over 3.600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
Sediments are a major reservoir for metals and organic chemical
contaminants because these chemicals bind to particles.
Sediment concentrations arc, therefore, typically higher than
they are in the water column. Changes in physical or chemical
characteristics of the sediment environment or the overlying
water column can cause these sediment-bound chemicals to be
released back into the water column.
Copper originates from domestic wastes as well as direct
industrial discharge. Urban stormwater runoff, atmospheric
deposition, industrial and municipal point source discharges, and
shoreline erosion contribute metals, pesticides, and other organic
chemical contaminants to the sediments of the bay and its
tributaries. Excessive copper ingcstion is associated with
impaired digestive functioning in humans.
This indicator measures copper concentrations in sediment cores
from the Chesapeake Bay Mainstream from 1875 to 1990. The
goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program is to reduce sediment
copper concentrations to a level below where there are no
adverse effects on living resources. The Threshold Effect Level
for copper is 18.7 ug/g. While the copper concentrations arc
declining, they still remain high enough to pose a health risk.
Copper concentrations in sediments have increased
113% between 1875 and 1990. However, the levels
have been decreasing since 1972.
Copper Concentrations in Sediments,
1875-1990
"
= in
Source: The Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Day and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Scientists used sediment cores to
establish long-term trends by finding background or baseline concentrations in
the deeper sections of the cores and constructing a chronology of sediment
contamination by analy/ing the shallower and more recently deposited sediment.
Sediment copper levels are not available only for all years: however, overall
trends can be extrapolated from the years that are available.
References
C'hesapeake Bay Program. .11 January 2003. Available online at:
hrtp:/ www.chesapeakebay.net/index.him
U.S Knvironmontal Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Knvironmental Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. Available online at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/indpub/indpub.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
106
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
OischargL-s/
I Emissions
Level 3
STATK
EFFECTS
Ambient
Conditions I
Level 4
Body
Hurdcn/
t"ptake
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/
Ideological
Health Risk
Level 6
TVPEA
..(immunity
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
] Outputs I
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Concentrations of Lead and Copper in Precipitation of the
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and.
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania. Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Hnvironmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
Copper originates from domestic wastes, as well as direct
industrial discharge. Excessive copper ingcstion is associated
with impaired digestive functioning in humans, although small
amounts of copper are necessary for survival.
Lead can affect almost every organ and system in the body. The
most sensitive is the central nervous system, particularly in
children. Lead also damages the kidneys and immune system.
In adults, lead may decrease reaction time, cause weakness in
fingers, wrists, or ankles, and possibly affect the memory. Lead
may also cause anemia, abortion, and damage to the male
reproductive system. Lead acetate and lead phosphate are
suspected carcinogens based on studies in animals; however,
there is inadequate evidence to clearly determine lead's
carcinogenicity in humans (U.S. Dcpt. of Health and Human
Services, 1993).
This indicator measures copper and lead concentrations in
rainfall from the Lewes Delaware atmospheric deposition
monitoring station from 1983 to 1993.
Lead concentrations have decreased 88% between 1983
and 1993.
Copper concentrations have increased 47% between
1991 and 1993.
Concentrations of Lead and Copper in
Precipitation of the Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem, 1983-1993
'50
UK)
I9K7 E9XX
V*»r
Source: The Chesapeake Hay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The data lor years after I'W3 are
unavailable, bul the trend for that time period can he extrapolated from the
remaining data points.
References
Chesapeake Buy Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.ncl/indcx.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). W3. "ATSDR ToxFAQs: Lead."
31 January 2003. Available online at:
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html
U.S IXnvironmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Knvironmcnlal Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.chcsapeakebay.net/pubs/indpub/indpub.htm
107
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Regulator)'
Responses
Actions by
Regulated
Community I
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
I
TYPEC
Indicator: Benzo[a|pyrene Concentration Levels in the Sediments of the
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
Sediments are a major reservoir for metals and organic chemical
contaminants because these chemicals bind to particles. Binding
can occur during urban stormwater runoff, atmospheric
deposition, industrial and municipal point source discharges,
shoreline erosion of metals in pesticides, and other organic
chemical contaminants to the sediments of the bay and its
tributaries.
Benzo[a]pyrene is one of a group of organic chemicals known as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs. They are naturally
formed in small quantities by plants and microbial organisms.
However, human activities, such as wood burning, iron and steel
production, motor vehicle emissions, and the burning of fossil
fuels to generate power, are all significant sources of PAH
contamination. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services has determined that benzo[a]pyrene causes cancer
when applied to the skin of laboratory animals. It has also been
determined to cause reproductive difficulties, such as birth
defects and low birth weight.
This indicator measures the concentration of benzo[a]pyrene in
sediment cores from the mid-Chesapeake Bay Mainstream from
1931 to 1990. In 1878, the pre-industrial revolution base level
concentration was 1.9 ng/g-dry weight. The goal of the
Chesapeake Bay Program is to maintain sediment concentration
levels below the Threshold Effect Level of 88.8 ng/g-dry
weight.
Overall, benzo[a]pyrene concentrations are declining.
However, current levels are still twenty times higher
than the 1878 base level.
Benzo|a|pyrene Concentrations in the
Sediments of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem,
1931-1990
140
13) '
If
II
£ 40
JO
l»74
Year
1«W1 1985 l<«8 !990
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
108
-------
Source: The Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Scientists used sediment cores 10
establish long-term trends by finding background or bast-line concentrations in
the deeper sections of the cores and constructing a chronology of sediment
contamination by analy/ing the shallower and more recenlly deposited sediment.
Measurements are only available for select years; however, overall trends can be
extrapolated from the available data.
References
Agency lor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2001. 31 January 2003,
Available online at:
http:.'v.ww.atsdr.cdc.gog.Toxl'roriles/Phs8805.html
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indcx.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Environmental Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.chcsapcakebay.net/pubs/indpub/indpub.htm
EsSS
109
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Health Risk I
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
J
Outputs
TYPEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania. Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
This indicator tracks industry reported releases and transfers of
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern (TOCs) reported in the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) from 1988 to 1997. The TRI is
a database that identifies annual amounts of chemicals released
{in routine operations and in accidents) and managed on- and
off-site in waste. TRI data are normally reported by volume of
release or managed waste of a specific chemical or a set of
chemicals. The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program is to have
a reduction in releases and transfers of TOCs from Bay basin
industries of 75% between 1988 and 2000. The toxics of
concern included in this measurement are cadmium, cadmium
compounds, chlordane, copper, copper compounds, chromium,
chromium compounds, lead, lead compounds, mercury,
naphthalene, and polychlorinated biphenyls. However,
chlordane and mercury were not released by any facility
between 1988 and 1997.
Industries in the Chesapeake Bay Basin decreased
the releases and transfers of toxics of concern by
29% between 1988 and 1997.
Despite this overall decrease, the releases and
transfers of toxics of concern were over a million
pounds per year greater in 1997 than in 1993.
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of
Toxics of Concern, 1988-1997
Illllll
1WS IW> >*«) l<)9! IW2 IW.l I"W4 1*15 IW6 IWJ
Yoar
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Releases refer to air, water, and land:
off-site transfers include transfers to wastewater treatment plants or disposal
sites, and transfers off-site for treatment. These data do not inelude transfers for
energy recovering or recycling which have been reported since 1991. Also.
excluded arc releases off-site to underground injection and on-site releases to
underground injection. Data from any industrial facility required to report
between I9S8 and 1997 arc included, even if the facility was nol required to
report every year. Data from federal facilities are not included in this indicator.
Releases of TOCs over time appear highly variable due to the fact that these data
represent a suhscl of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data and. therefore, can be
driven by the actions of only a few facilities. For example, in 1997
approximately ten facilities had releases of over 100.000 Ibs.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
110
-------
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp:<.-w ww.chcsapcakcbuy.net? index.htm
l.-.S Knvirimmenlal Protection Agency. 1W9. 1'nvironnicni Outcome-Rased
Management: Using Environmental Goals and Measures in Ihc
Chesapeake Hay System. 31 January 2003. Available unlinc at:
hltp:."www.fhesapeakebay.net/pubs/indplih/indpuh.htii)
<»:-
~*\ A«-v
~ ~~^*»%
INMlflllt 01 H
111
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/
Ideological
I iealth Risk
Level 6
Level?
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chemical
Contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acrc
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial C'hesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
This indicator tracks industry reported releases and transfers of
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) from 1988 to 1998. The TR1 is
a database that identifies annual amounts of chemicals released
(in routine operations and in accidents) and managed on- and
off-site in waste. TRI data are normally reported by volume of
release or managed waste of a specific chemical or a set of
chemicals. The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program is to have
a 65% decrease in releases and transfers of chemical
contaminants between 1988 and 2000.
* Industries in the Chesapeake Bay Basin decreased the
releases and transfers of toxics of concern by 67%
between 1988 and 1998.
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of
Chemical Contaminants, 1988-1998
J 200
y 100 '
Air
IW8 I*W I WO IWI
]>NJ IW4 ]>N5 I
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
I
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants from Federal
Facilities in the Chesapeake Bay Region ^___
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acrc
watershed arc over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act.
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
This indicator tracks releases and transfers of Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) chemical contaminants from federal facilities
between 1994 and 1998. The TRI is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. The goal of the
Chesapeake Bay Program is to achieve a 75% voluntary
reduction in releases and transfers of chemical contaminants
from federal facilities in the basin.
Federal facilities in the Chesapeake Bay basin reduced
releases and transfers of chemical contaminants 83%
between 1994 and 1998.
Releases and Transfers of Chemical
Contaminants from Federal
Facilities, 19941998
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Hay and its watersheds
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Releases refer to air, water, and land;
oil-site transfers inelude transfers to wastcwatcr treatment plants or disposal
sites, and transfers off-site for treatment. These data do not include transfers for
energy recovering or recycling which have been reported since 1991. Also,
excluded are releases off-site to underground injection and on-site releases lo
underground injection. Included in the data are all chemicals thai have been
consistently reported in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) between 1994 and
1998. Any chemicals that were dclistcd during this time period have been
removed from the indicator. Similarly, new chemicals added to the TRI since
1994 are not included.
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
h.ttp:/'w ww.chesapeakebay.net/index.htm
I'.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Environmental Goals and Measures in the
C'hesapeake Bay System. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp://www.chesapcakcbay.net'pubs/indpub/mdpub.htrn
13
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
STATE
Anihicnc
Ouuliiions
Level 4
SOCIETAL RKSPONSF.
Ik KFFKKTS W SOCIETAL
Wm H,K|> k Hum;,,,/ I i,,,,,,,,,,.,, Pj Rclrulill(,n k
Burden/ l-.colotfcal Human JU.s,,ollst.s I
I I'pmkc I Health Risk I 'Iculili I ' I
Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 1
Outcomes i Out
Ro-ula.on | Acti<»lsl»-
Responses I Kwilalcii
t.ommunilv I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Cropland Acres Under Integrated Pest Management in the
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 197()'s, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions ihat water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
The U.S. hnvironmental Protection Agency (liPA) defines
integrated pest management (IPM) as "the coordinated use of
pest and environmental information with available pest control
methods to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment." Proponents of IPM
believe that it offers the best opportunity to reduce
environmental and human health risk resulting from exposure to
pesticides, to protect and conserve natural resources, to make
fanning more profitable, and to provide high-quality and sate
foods and agricultural products.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has identified four
general components of IPM:
Prevention. Prevention may encompass a variety of
techniques, but the central purpose is to prevent the
infestation of the pest. A few examples of prevention
include the use of pest-free seeds and transplants, the
use of disease resistant varieties, and the maintenance
of high levels of field and equipment sanitation.
Avoidance. Avoidance is used where some level of
infestation may exist, but serious problems can be
avoided through appropriate practices. C'rop rotation,
the use of trap crops, selective planting, and the use of
plants whose maturity dates precede the development
of pest populations are examples of avoidance.
Monitoring. Monitoring involves surveying and
scouting conditions to determine what needs to be done
rather than routinely applying pesticides.
Suppression. Suppression involves utili/ing a variety
of cultural, physical, biological, and chemical
pesticides techniques to prevent or eliminate pests.
The more acreage of farmland in the U.S. that is under 1PM, the
less direct usage of chemical pesticides there will be. The goal
of the Chesapeake Bay Program is to establish voluntary IPM
practices on 75% of all agricultural, recreational, and public
lands within the basin by the year 2000. This indicator measures
the number of cropland acres under IPM in the Chesapeake Bay
Basin in 1997 and 199X.
In 1998, IPM was practiced on 79% of the cropland
surveyed. This is a total of 3.82 million acres.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
14
-------
Cropland Acres Under Integrated Pest
Management in Virginia, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania, 1997-1998
Year
Source: The Chesapeake Hay Program.
Scale: The Chesapeake Bay and iis watersheds.
Notes: In 1997, an Agronomic Crop Survey was developed and administered hy
the CUP in order to better quantify the acreage of cropland on which 1PM
practices are conducted. Approximated 4.S5 million acres were surveyed in
19()X.
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 31 Januar) 2'Hl.v Available online at:
http: www.chesapeakebay.net/inilex.htm
Kc/xiri on liitt'sruh'if Pest Maihwment «'//>iH-tt\l hy the
Liiili'ilMutt's Di'ixirimcnt <>t A^ni'ulinrc. Submitted to the I louse
Agriculture, Rural Development. 1-oocl and Drug Administration, ami
Related Agencies Appropriation Committee. May IS. I')')«.
L'.S. Department ot'Agricullute. National Agricultural Statistics Sen ice. l\vi
Mtithi^cnn'Hl I'l'tit'iin.'*. 1 y(>iV Siuiuiutty. 31 January ZOO.V Available
online at:
http: usda.inannlib.cornell.edu reports'nassr other pest. pcslanW.pdl
I..S l'iuironmentiil l*n>leclit>n Auenc\'. !Wl). l:n\ininmenl Oulctime-iS;isod
Management: Using Ijivironmental Goals and Measures in the
Chesapeake Bay System. Available online at:
http: u u \\ .chesapecikebavitet pubs indpub indpub.hl?n
U.S. I n\ ironmcnKil Protcctioti Agency, liiti-gruttfil Pcxi Munagi'inwti. .>!
January 2003. Available online at:
hup: www.epa.gos pesticidesluodipm.htm
115
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
f iuman/
Ideological
Health Risk
TYPEA
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TYPEC
Indicator: Pesticide Container Recycling Programs in the Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
The pesticide container recycling programs in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed are carried out through the State Departments of
Agriculture working with localities in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia. The containers accepted for recycling in these
programs include all non-refillable, high-density plastic
containers. Containers must be triple-rinsed by the owners and
the rinsate returned to pesticide sprayers for use in subsequent
applications. Containers accepted through the programs are
chipped, bagged, and checked for contaminants. In some
programs, the material is used to make pallets used by chemical
manufacturers for stacking boxes.
This indicator measures the number of pesticide containers
recycled through the recycling programs in Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia from 1993 to 1999.
The number of pesticide containers being recycled had
an overall increase of 66% between 1993 and 1999.
There has been a 17% decrease in the number of
containers being recycled between the peak years of
1997 and 1999.
Pesticide Containers Recycled in Programs of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia,
1993-1999
199.' I1*t IW? IW6
199X IW
Source: The Chesapeake Hay Program.
Scale: The C'hesapeakc Bay and its watersheds.
References
Chesapeake Hay Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
ritlp://www.ehesapeakchay.nct/index.htm
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environment Outcome-Based
Management: Using Environmental Goals and
Measures in the Chesapeake Bay System. Available online at:
liltp:'/www,dicsapeakcbay.nefpubs/indpub-'indpub.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
16
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Kmissions
Level 3
I^cvei 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Pesticide Collection and Disposal Programs in the Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' largest estuary and,
with over 3,600 species of plants and animals, a highly diverse,
complex, and productive ecosystem. Within its 64,000-acre
watershed are over 100,000 streams and tributaries that flow into
the Bay. By the 1970's, development around the Bay had
reached such proportions that water resources had been severely
polluted and biological resources of all types were declining
rapidly. Spurred by the passage of the federal Clean Water Act,
civic and governmental action led to the creation in 1983 of the
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement created a
partnership among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The purpose of
this partnership is to focus on the restoration of the Bay and its
living resources.
The pesticide collection and disposal programs in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed are carried out through the State
Departments of Agriculture working with Cooperative
l:\tcnsion Services in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
To be cost effective, the programs target only jurisdictions that
show a significant amount of cropland acreage. Unwanted
pesticides are collected by contractors who dispose of the
material at EPA approved disposal sites.
This indicator measures the pounds of pesticides collected and
disposed by programs in the Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay region from 1990 to
1999.
The amount of pesticides collected and disposed in the
Chesapeake Bay region increased 79% between 1990
and 1999.
Despite this overall increase, the amount of pesticides
collected and disposed decreased 41% between 1998
and 1999.
Total Pounds of Pesticides Collected and
Disposed in Programs of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, 1990-1999
1997 ]
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator Set: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program
(MAIA)
The Mid-Atlantic region of the United Stales is a diverse area
with major land forms ranging from estuaries to coastal plains to
mountains. It is also an area with many areas of dense population
thai place considerable stress on environmental values.
Region 3 and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are working jointly
on an ecosystem-based evaluation of this region and its
watersheds. This evaluation is called the Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) program. The program will draw upon the
resources of a number of other local, state and federal programs
to assemble a regional environmental monitoring assessment
system capable of meeting a range of scientific, planning and
management needs. Through its partners, a rich array of data is
available to develop measurement tools. Such partners include:
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP).
the mid Atlantic Highlands Assessment, the National Biological
Service's Gap Analysis Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program,
the Delaware Estuary Program, the Virginia Coastal Bays
Program, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality
Assessment Program, the Forest Service's Forest Inventory and
Analysis Program, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Coastal Change Analysis Program.
The study area will include all of Pennsylvania. Maryland.
Delaware. Virginia. West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
and parts of New Jersey. New York, and North Carolina.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Seventeen data sets are being
assembled for csiuarics that deal with a range «!' physical, chemical, and
biological measures. Chemically-related daia sets include:
O Sediment toxicity.
3 Sediment chemistry (91 chemical constituents, total metals. AVS.
SEMS. huiylins. PAHs. PCBs. and pesticides).
) Fish tissue chemistry (metals. PAHs. PCBs. organoehlorine
pesticides), and
D Sediment toxicity in streams.
Specific indicators have yet to be developed, hut the near-term potential
for this program to provide a strong system is good. As data from other
activities, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, are integrated into this
system, MAIA could become a source of many high quality indicators
capable of defining chemical impacts in the area.
Reference
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA) website.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures 11
IB
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
PRESSURE
SOCIETAI. RESPONSE
^^
ctions b
TYPE A
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: PCB Levels in Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Blue Crabs
The presence of toxic substances and pesticides has the potential
to disrupt the functioning of entire ecosystems. In the past,
tracking chemical loadings on an ecosystem-wide basis was not
common. However, many ecosystem-wide monitoring programs
are now underway. An example of this is the Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA). MA1A is a research,
monitoring, and assessment program whose main objective is to
develop high-quality scientific information on the condition of
the natural resources of the Mid-Atlantic region of the eastern
United States. The study area includes all of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of
Columbia, and parts of New Jersey, New York, and North
Carolina. The Mid-Atlantic is a diverse area with major
ecosystems ranging from estuaries to coastal plains lo
mountains. It is also an area with many areas of dense
population that place considerable stress on ecological resources.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A class of pollutants introduced into the environment through
run-off from urbanized areas is the PCBs. Due to their nature.
they are of particular concern in the Mid-Atlantic region. PC'Bs
are a small family of industrial compounds that arc
environmentally persistent and bioaccumulative (Francis 1994).
PCBs have been linked to reproductive problems in turtles
(Bergeron et al. 1994), developmental malformations in birds
(Francis 1994), and reductions in the photosynthetic activity of
plants (Doust et al. 1994). They are good representatives for
many of the toxic organic compounds from anthropogenic
sources since they comprise a variety of common substances thai
display a range of physical and chemical properties. This also
makes them well suited for long-term ambient monitoring. This
indicator measures PCB levels in blue crabs from estuaries in the
Mid-Atlantic region.
At this time, Blue Crab data are currently available for the
Carolinian Provinces from 1994 to 1997. Data from other
provinces are in the process of being added to the database.
However, summary data files are not available for the MAIA.
The available data are disaggregated according to province,
chemical, and testing station. Due to the analytical complexity
required to summarize this data in a manner that would lend
itself to presentation as an indicator, this indicator is considered
to be a Type B.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Region 3 and the Office of Research
and Development (OKI)) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency arc
working jointly on an ecosystem-based evaluation of this region and its
watersheds the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). The program
draws upon the resources of a number of other local, state, and federal programs
to assemble a regional environmental monitoring assessment system capable of
meeting a range of scientific, planning, and management needs Through its
partners a rich array of data is available to develop measurement tools. Such
partners include: the Hnvironmcnlal Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP). the mid Atlantic Highlands Assessment, the National Biological
Service's Gap Analysis Program, the Chesapeake Hay Program, the Delaware
Estuary Program, the Virginia Coastal Bays Program, the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program, the Forest Service's
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Change Analysis Program. Specific
indicators have yet to he developed, but the near-term potential for this program
to provide a strong system is good.
References
Bergeron, J.M. et Al. "PCBs as Environmental Estrogens." Cited in
FundamvntiilsofEcotmu-ology. Michael C. Newman. Ann Arbor:
Sleeping Hear Press. I9W.
Doust, .1.1.. et Al. "Biological Asscssmention of Aquatic Pollution." Cited in
Fundamentals of Ecotuxh-tilogy. Michael C. Newman. Ann Arbor:
Sleeping Bear Press, 19°S.
Franeis. H. Magnus. 1'W4. Toxic .fiihstancex in the Enrironmi'ta. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA). 31 January 2003.
Available online at: http: www.epa.gov emap maia
119
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Actions o\
Regulated
Community
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Concentrations of PCBs in Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Sediments
The presence of toxic substances and pesticides has the potential
to disrupt the functioning of entire ecosystems. In the past,
tracking chemical loadings on an ecosystem-wide basis was not
common. However, many ecosystem-wide monitoring programs
are now underway. An example of this is the Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA). MA1A is a research,
monitoring, and assessment program whose main objective is to
develop high-quality scientific information on the condition of
the natural resources of the Mid-Atlantic region of the eastern
United States. The study area includes all of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of
Columbia, and parts of New Jersey, New York, and North
Carolina. The Mid-Atlantic is a diverse area with major
ecosystems ranging from estuaries to coastal plains to
mountains. It is also an area with many areas of dense
population that place considerable stress on ecological
resources.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A class of pollutants introduced into the environment through
run-off from urbanized areas is the PCBs. Due to their nature,
they are of particular concern in the Mid-Atlantic region. PCBs
are a small family of industrial compounds that are
environmentally persistent and bioaccumulative (Francis 1994).
PCBs have been linked to reproductive problems in turtles
(Bergeron et al. 1994), developmental malformations in birds
(Francis 1994), and reductions in the photosynthetic activity of
plants (Doust et al. 1994). They are good representatives for
many of the toxic organic compounds from anthropogenic
sources since they comprise a variety of common substances that
display a range of physical and chemical properties. This also
makes them well suited for long-term ambient monitoring. This
indicator measures PCB concentrations in estuarine sediments
from the Virginian and Carolinian Provinces.
At this time, data are available for the Virginian Provinces from
1990 to 1993 and the Carolinian Provinces from 1994 to 1997.
However, summary data files are not available for the MAIA.
The available data are disaggregated according to province,
chemical, and testing station. Due to the analytical complexity
required to summarize this data in a manner that would lend
itself to presentation as an indicator, this indicator is considered
to be a Type B.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Region 3 and the Office of Research
and Development (OKI)) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are
working jointly on an ecosystem-based evaluation of this region and its
watersheds the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). The program
draws upon the resources of a number of other local, state, and federal programs
to assemble a regional environmental monitoring assessment system capable of
meeting a range of scientific, planning, and management needs. Through its
partners a rich array of data is available to develop measurement tools. Such
partners include: the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(KMAP), the mid Atlantic Highlands Assessment, the National Biological
Service's Gap Analysis Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Delaware
Estuary- Program, the Virginia Coastal Bays Program, the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program, the Forest Service's
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Change Analysis Program. Specific
indicators have yet to be developed, but the near-term potential for this program
to provide a strong system is good.
References
Bergeron, J.M. et Al. "PCBs as Environmental Estrogens." Cited in
Fundamental* afEcotoxiailogy. Michael C. Newman. Ann Arbor:
Sleeping Bear Press. 1998.
Doust, J.L. ct Al. "Biological Assessmention of Aquatic Pollution." Cited in
Fundamental* ofEcotoxicology. Michael C. Newman. Ann Arbor:
Sleeping Bear Press, 199X.
Francis. B. Magnus. 1994. Toxic Substances in the Environment. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA). 31 January 2003.
Available online at: http://www.cpa.gov/emap/maia'
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
120
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator: Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment Program (MAHA)
Region 3 and the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation
with the states of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia, 10 other federal agencies, and the Nature Conservancy
have formed an alliance to conduct a multi-year assessment of a
79.000-mile area known as the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. This
alliance, known as the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program
(MAHA), is intended to assess the ecological condition of the
air. water, and land resources and to identify sensitive areas and
at risk biological resources.
MAHA will use a goal-based, indicator driven management
system to make sound environmental decisions for the
ecosystem.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Data Collection and Characteristics: Data identification and collection is in
process, but indicator development has rail yet begun.
References
U.S. KPA Mid Atlantic Highlands Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ecopIacps/pHrtl/sttel4.htinl
U.S.G.S. Mid-Highlands Program (MAHA). 31 January 2003. Available online
al: http://water.usgs.gov/
r
V
\
,?/-
\ -
121
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator: Western Pilot Study
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) and Regions 8, 9, and 10 of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with the states of
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii. Idaho, Montana.
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon. South Dakota, Utah.
Washington, and Wyoming are participating in the Western
Pilot Study (WPS). This study will be conducted over a five-
year period and is intended to "generate state and regional scale
assessments of the condition of ecological resources in the
western United States, and to identify stressors associated with
the degradation of these resources." Additionally, the study will
demonstrate the effective use of core monitoring, environmental
monitoring, and assessment tools across large ecosystems.
States Participating in the Western
Pilot Study
\
Indicator Development with focus on three areas:
Coastal Indicators. A variety of indicators will be
collected that describe both biological conditions and
stressors impacting western estuaries. Core EMAP
coastal measures focus on three areas: water column.
sediments, and fish and invertebrate trawls. Indicators
of chemical and pesticide interest include:
Sediment chemistry
* Sediment toxicity
External pathology
Tissue analyses
Surface Water Indicators. Indicators that characterize
biological, physical habitat, and water chemistry will be
developed. At present, there are no chemical or
pesticide indicators that will be developed at all sites.
Depending upon resources and local applicability
several indicators may be employed to include:
Fish tissue chemistry/toxics
Sediment chemistry
Sediment toxicity
Water column toxicity
Landscape Indicators. Specific landscape indicators
have not yet been developed.
Project management uses of the indicators in the Western Pilot
Study include:
Supporting the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA).
Providing a status and trends analysis on the area for
public information purposes.
Providing a risk assessment approach to making
fundamental decisions about environmental and
budgetary decisions relating to ecosystem protection.
References
tMAP Western Pilot Study. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/emap/wpiloy
Region 8 Western Pilot Study. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
hup:/www.epa.gov/region08.'water emap.html
Region 9 Western Pilot Study. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/region09/water'wemap/
Region 10 Western Pilot Study. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov'rlO/oea.ns(7webpage/emap/?OpenDocument
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
122
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator: San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River-Delta Ecosystem
The purpose of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to develop
and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore
the ecological health and improve water management for the
many valuable uses of the Bay-Delta System. The CALFED
Bay-Delta Program is a joint effort between more than 20 state
and federal agencies in managing the San Francisco Bay and
San Joaquin River Bay-Delta, which will be implemented in
stages throughout the next 30 years to solve California's
environmental and water problems. The Bay-Delta is the largest
estuary on the west coast and includes 750 plant and animal
species. The program's efforts will be directed towards the
achievement of four major goals: water supply reliability, water
quality, ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity.
California's Bay-Delta represents an unhealthy ecosystem where
several species, such as the Chinook salmon and steelhead trout,
are in decline or endangered. Additionally, demands placed on
the Bay-Delta from the needs of a large population has given
way to a water supply that is unreliable and of poor quality. As
a result, meeting the drinking water standards and the water
quality standards necessary for the long-term survival of native
species is a challenging and costly task.
Listed below are several indicators being developed that relate
the effects of chemicals and pesticides to the San Francisco Bay
and the San Joaquin River-Delta. The completion of such
indicators will contribute to the well being of numerous species
and to the improvement of the water quality:
Ecological/biological effects threshold concentrations
for mercury in sediments and key organisms in the
Bay-Delta estuary and its watershed
Diazinon and chloropyrifos hazard assessment criteria
Ecological significance of pesticide discharges
Spatial and temporal extent of metal pollution
Impacts of metals, such as cadmium, copper, and /inc
Toxicity of unknown origins
Effects of bioaccumulation of toxic substances
As the CALFED Bay-Delta Program progresses, more indicators
pertinent to chemicals and pesticides may become available.
The potential for this program to provide a good system for
measuring chemical and pesticide impacts in the area is strong.
References
CALKED Bay-Delta Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http: <7c ;i 1 fcd.ca.gov/
123
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator: Estuarine and Great Lakes Program
In 2000, the U.S. EPA granted authority to establish live
Estuarine Indicator Research Programs, along with funding to
support five years worth of development. The intent of these
programs was to support the development of an environmental
"suite of new, integrative indicators of ecological condition,
integrity, and/or sustainability that can be incorporated into
long-term monitoring programs and which will complement
ORD's intramural coastal monitoring program."
Five major areas of the coastline of the United States EAGLES
is intended to:
1. Develop indicators and/or procedures useful for
evaluating the 'health' or condition of important coastal
natural resources (e.g., lakes, streams, coral reefs,
coastal wetlands, inland wetlands, rivers, estuaries) at
multiple scales, ranging from individual communities to
coastal drainage areas to entire biogeographical
regions.
2. Develop indicators, indices, and/or procedures useful
for evaluating the integrated condition of multiple
resource/ecosystem types within a defined watershed,
drainage basin, or larger biogeographical region of the
U.S.
3. Develop landscape measures that characterize
landscape attributes and that concomitantly serve as
quantitative indicators of a range of environmental
endpoints, including water quality, watershed quality,
freshwater/estuarine/marinc biological condition, and
habitat suitability.
4. Develop nested suites of indicators that can both
quantify the health or condition of a resource or system
and identify its primary stressors at local and regional
scales.
Project Websites:
Atlantic Coast Environmental Indicators Consortium. 31 January 2003.
Available online at: http:/;www.aceinc.org/
Atlantic Slope Consortium. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http: // w w w .asc. psu.edu/
Center tor Estuarine Ecosystem Indicator Research. 31 January 2003. Available
online at: http:,7www.bml.ucdavis.edu/pecir/
Consortium for Estuarine Ecoindicator Research for (he Gulf of Mexico. 31
January 2003. Available online at: http://www.coms.usm.edu/ceer/
Great Lakes Environmental Indicator Project. 31 January 2003. Available
online at: http://glei.nrn.umn.edu/default/
Reference
The Estuarine and Great Lakes Program. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/centers/cagles/
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
124
-------
ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
MAJOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Indicator: National Coastal Assessment (Coastal 2000)
The Office of Research and Development of the U.S.
Environmental Projection Agency has, along with its partners,
collected extensive information from hundreds of monitoring
stations along the nation's coastline. Data are available for a
wide range of important coast environmental parameters to
include: water column parameters, sediment chemistry and
toxicity, benthic communities, demersal fish, and tissue
contaminants.
EPA is continuing this Assessment with Coastal 2000. C'oastal
2000 is a five-year effort to survey the condition of the nation's
coastal resources by creating an integrated, comprehensive
coastal monitoring program among the coastal states.
A searchable database is available online. Over 350 chemicals
and pesticides are included for water column chemistry,
sediment chemistry, and fish tissue contamination.
Reference
National Coastal Assessment. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http: « ww.cpa.gov ernapnca.
125
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
ENVIROMENTAL
ISSUE 3:
CHEMICAL AND
PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Toxlcity Index for Releases and Managed Waste
HPV Challenge Program
Average Toxicity of Pesticide Active Ingredient Applied per Acre
Pesticide Detections in Ground and Surface Water
National Emissions of Air Toxics
Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with Biopesticides
Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with Reduced Risk Pesticides
Sale of Dry Cleaning Equipment Using Safer Chemicals
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Field Crops by Pesticide Product Signal Word
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by Pesticide Product Signal Word
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fruits by Pesticide Product Signal Word
Chemical Bioaccumulation in Mussel Tissue
Toxicity Index for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Releases
PCBs and Persistent Pesticide Detections in Fish and Bed Sediment
Number of Certified Organic Farmland Acres
Number of Acres in Integrated Pest Management
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 3:
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
With over 70,000 chemicals and pesticides in use in the U.S., much of the potential health
risk from those chemicals can he controlled through their proper use and management. This
means eliminating or restricting the release of harmful chemicals into the environment,
reducing the need for unnecessary chemicals and pesticides, ensuring that the chemicals
and pesticides we use are safe and safely used, and cleaning up after ourselves when
significant pollution occurs. Achievement of these ends must be placed within the context
of providing adequate economic support to meet fundamental human needs, protecting
important natural systems and values, and maintaining social equity in sharing the benefits
and costs of society.
In early discussions, five principal issues were identified as having relevance to sustainability within the context of
chemicals and pesticides: managing the toxicity of the ambient environment, providing and using safer pesticides and
chemicals, improving chemical and pesticide safety, diminishing persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals and pesticides,
and providing less chemically dependent alternative farming techniques.
Issue Dimensions
Toxicity of the Ambient Environment
livery year an additional increment of chemicals is introduced into the environment. For 2000, the Toxic Release
Inventory reported total toxic releases to the environment of 7.1 billion pounds.. This amount represents only a fraction
of the total chemical releases from all sources in the United States. To this must be added over 1 billion pounds of
pesticides that were applied directly to the indoor and outdoor environment to control pests. These numbers, however,
speak only to the United States and do not account for Europe, South America, or the exploding industriall economies of
Asia. The toxicity of these chemicals, their persistence in the environment, their level of concentration, and their distribution
are important concerns that have important consequences, not only for the current citizens of the U.S. and the world, but
for the generations to follow.
Safer Chemicals and Pesticides
The impacts of chemical and pesticide use on everyday life have been both positive and negative. Plainly society derives
enormous benefit from the use of chemicals and pesticides, and their continued use in the future is assured. Recognizing
that the inappropriate use of toxic chemicals can harm human and ecological health, efforts need to be taken to continuously
produce safer chemicals and promote the safe use of chemicals. To protect the environment for future generations,
chemicals must be developed that have lower levels of toxicity and arc generally safer for the environment.
Chemical and Pesticide Safety
Recogni/.ing the potential for chemicals and pesticides to have acute and chronic impacts on human health, an issue of
major concern is ensuring that those chemicals and pesticides are used and managed in a manner that minimi/es their
potential for harm. This can mean any number of things. Effective packaging, good product labeling, careful use
protocols, ensuring the users of chemicals understand how they are to be used, training pesticide applicators in safe
procedures, and transporting chemicals safely from location to location are all examples among many possible examples,
of chemical and pesticide safety concerns.
129
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxics
Of particular concern is a class of toxic chemicals that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in human and animal
tissues, and result in negative health effects. These chemicals additionally move quite easily from one media to another
and are capable of moving about on a global scale. Such chemicals - known as Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
(PBTs) - are worthy of special consideration because of the serious ongoing health risk they pose. Increases in
concentrations of these substances have implications, not just for current populations, but for future populations as well.
EPA's list of Priority PBTs include:
aldrin/dieldrin
mercury and its compounds
en/o(a)pyrene
tnirex
chlordanc
octachlorostyrene
DDT, DDP, DDE
PCBs
hexachlorobenzene
dioxins and furans
alkyl-lead
toxaphene
Alternative Farming Systems
Agricultural operations in the U.S. routinely and extensively use a variety of pesticides and herbicides. In 1997
approximately 770 million pounds of active ingredient were applied agriculturally in the U.S. The use of these chemicals
has generated much public concern and scientific inquiry about how human and ecological health are affected by their
use. This issue will focus on trends in farming techniques that eliminate or greatly reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
130
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
TOXICITY OF THE AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
I'RKSSUKE
Discharges/
remissions
Level 3
TYPEB
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
J
Outputs
J
TYPEC
Indicator: Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste
The Toxics Release Inventory (TR1) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicities of the individual chemicals. These toxicities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release. To redress this
limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. The
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating a toxicity score for each chemical.
The toxicity score is multiplied by the pounds of chemical
released or managed in waste: the toxicity of each chemical
release and waste stream can be aggregated to provide an
estimate of the total toxicity of releases and managed waste for a
given year.
This measure can have implications for both human and
ecological health, with declining trends in the total toxicily of
chemical releases and managed waste implying potential for a
more healthful environment. The measure also has implications
for the success of governmental pollution prevention programs
and for activities conducted by the private sector to improve
pollution related efficiencies.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchorcd or unitless
measure of toxicity. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of toxicity
over lime. For this indicator, the toxicity of releases and
managed waste was adjusted to create an index. It is
conventional to present unitless data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the estimate of toxicity of releases and managed
waste for the baseline year was adjusted to equal a value of 100;
subsequent estimates reflect changes from that baseline of 100.
if industries are maintaining or improving pollution efficiencies
or succeeding at pollution prevention, then the index should
display constant or declining trends.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
arc exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
toxicity of releases into the environment and managed chemical
waste. It can be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in pollution prevention and improving
pollution efficiencies.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of chemicals
that have been reported every year since the inception of TRI in
1988; how:ever, the chart reflects data beginning in 1992, which
is when recycling, energy recovery and treatment operations
were incorporated into TRI. The second chart reflects data for
an enhanced list of chemicals that have been reported every year
from 1995 to 2000.
The toxicity index for the core chemicals list shows
some annual variation, and a slight overall increase
through 1999 with slight reduction in the toxicity of
releases and managed waste from 1999 to 2000.
Waste recycling accounts for the vast majority (over
60%) of the toxicity index for the core chemicals list.
131
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed
Waste (Core Chemicals List), 1992-2000
Other
POTWs
C Reposal
ri Unikrgrritind li
Water
Air
Treatment
Year
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Computer queries of
national summary data prepared January 2003.
Releases to land represent the second-largest share of
the toxicity index for the core chemicals list; the
toxicity of these releases has overall decreased slightly
from 1992 to 2000.
Overall, the chart shows that most of the toxicity
represented by the core chemicals list is managed as
waste, rather than released into the environment.
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed
Waste (Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
Other
POTXV*
Fnerg\ K^
Dsposai
Water
Treatment
Air
IWS 19%
1W I9W 1*W
Year
The toxicity index for the enhanced chemicals list
shows that the toxicity of releases and managed waste
decreased from 1995 to 2000.
Waste recycling accounts for the vast majority (over
60%) of the toxicity index for the enhanced chemicals
list; however, its share of the toxicity index decreased
from 1995 to 2000.
Releases to land represent the second-largest share of
the toxicity index for the enhanced chemicals list; the
toxicity of these releases increased from 1995 to 2000.
Overall, the chart shows that most of the toxicity
represented by the enhanced chemicals list is managed
as waste, rather than released into the environment.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can be viewed on the national I
by EPA regions, slates, counties, cities, and zip codes.
:vcl. as well as
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Km ironmental Indicators (RS!-!l) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: loxicity and health risk. The
RSE1 incorporates toxiciiy scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioriti/e chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting,
and community-based environmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: releases (air. water, land,
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recover,', treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works [POTWs]).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-sile discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies of water,
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
to air are reported cither as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stuck emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as slacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff arc also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical
separationl, which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998. non-manufacturing sector> were not
required to report. As of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining,
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
ha/.ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources arc not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
does not require that facilities monitor their releases. Hstimation techniques are
used where monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage. Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recogni/e that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
132
-------
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References
1999 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Da/a Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
August 2000. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered
online from: U.S. EPA / NSCEP. Altn.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box
42419. Cincinnati. OH 45242-2419. Hax: (513) 489-8695. Phone:
(800)490-9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa. gov.'lri/iridala/triOO/indcx. htm.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators," Fact Sheet, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1. 1999.
Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Knvinutmental Indicators
Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June 1997.
User's Manual fur EPA 's Ris/i Screening Environmental Indicators \lotlel:
I'ersion 1.02, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, November 15, 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators arc available on at: http://www.epa.j5ov/opptintr/rsei/. 31 January
2003. To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSC'A Assistance
Information Service. (202) 554-1404. Tsca-hotlinefu cpa.gov).
133
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
TOXICITY OF THE AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
Actit >ns by
Regulated
Community
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
Indicator: HPV Challenge Program
The U.S. high production volume (HPV) chemicals are those
which are manufactured in or imported into the United States in
amounts equal to or greater than one million pounds per year.
The U.S. HPV chemicals were identified through information
collected under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Inventory Update Rule (IUR). Organic chemicals that were
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States in amounts
equal to or exceeding 10,000 pounds per year were subject to
reporting under the TSCA IUR. Reporting is required every
four years (EPA Website).
Although HPV chemicals are produced or imported in large
quantities in the United States, there is little or no publicly
available information regarding the potential hazards associated
with most HPV chemicals. In order to obtain such information,
EPA has established a data collection and development program
for existing HPV chemicals. Through the HPV Initiative,
which includes the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, certain
international efforts, and potential rulemaking under the Toxic:
Substances Control Act (TSCA), basic screening level hazard
data necessary to provide critical information about the
environmental fate and potential hazards associated with HPV
chemicals are being collected or, where necessary, developed.
A primary component of this HPV Initiative is the voluntary
HPV Challenge Program, which was created in cooperation
with industry, environmental groups, and other interested
parties, and is designed to assemble basic screening level test
data on the potential hazards of HPV chemicals while avoiding
unnecessary or duplicative testing. The list of HPV Challenge-
Program chemicals consists of all the HPV chemicals reported
during the 1990 IUR reporting year. Data needs that remain
unmet in the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, may be
addressed through the international efforts or rulemaking. Data
collected and/or developed under the HPV Initiative will
provide critical basic information about the environmental fate
and potential hazards associated with these chemicals which,
when combined with information about exposure and uses, will
allow the Agency and others to evaluate and prioritize potential
health and environmental effects and take appropriate follow up
action.
(Source: [OPPTS-42213; AR-201; FRL-6754-6] U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. "Data Collection and
Development on High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals."
Federal Register Vol 65, No 248. 12/26/00, Notices URL:
www.epa.go/chemrtk/t542213.pdf).
More than 300 companies and 101 consortia have voluntarily
accepted the challenge to address the absence of and need for
screening-level data for more than 2,100 HPV chemicals by
2005, with the remaining to be addressed by international and
government actions. In FY 2002 EPA's HPV Challenge
Program continued to make health and environmental effects
screening data publicly available for more than 800 industrial
and commercial chemicals, making steady progress toward the
program's objective of screening existing chemicals to identify
potential human and ecological hazards and risks. (Source: US
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report, 2/03. Available online at
http://www.epa, gov/ocfopage/finstaternent/2002ar/ar02__goal4.pdf)
Source: Tho US EPA HPV Voluntary Challenge Chemical List Website. 21
February 2003. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvchmit.htrn
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
134
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
TOXICITY OF THE AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
PRESSURE
TYPE A
TYPEC
Indicator: Average Toxicity of Pesticide Active Ingredient Applied per Acre
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There are many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems. For these reasons, it
is important not only to monitor the agricultural usage of
pesticides, but also to estimate the overall toxicity of the
pesticides that are applied in a given year. Accurate
understanding of the overall toxicity is the first step in the
transition from monitoring only usage to estimating real risk to
the population. While toxicity scores cannot suggest risk to
humans or the environment, they can provide greater
understanding of the character of pesticides that are being
applied.
The figure on the right illustrates the trends that have been
identified in pesticide use and toxicity since 1964. This data,
which was assembled by the US Department of Agriculture's
Economic Research Service, shows that while pesticide use has
increased tremendously, the chronic toxicity of pesticides has
remained fairly constant and acute toxicity has decreased
considerably. However, the indicators compared here are less
than ideal. There is a fair degree of inconsistency in the
robustness of the toxicity scores that were associated with
specific pesticides. For instance, the chronic loxicity scores
were based on EPA Reference Doses, estimated Reference
Doses from the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, and
estimates reported by the World Health Organization. The acute
toxicity scores were largely based Oral LD50 values for rats.
To develop the desired indicator it is advisable that a toxicity
weighting system similar to that used by the EPA's
Hnvironmcnta] Risk Screening Indicator (ERS1) Model be used.
This modeling system has been used to calculate loxicity scores
for approximately 99% of the chemicals reported under the
Toxics Release Inventory. By identifying Reference Doses or
Oral Slope Factors for all relevant pesticides, one could very
easily calculate an estimate of average toxicity of pesticide
active ingredients applied per acre. The most substantial
drawback to proceeding with the development of an indicator
using the ERSI methodology is the lack of a comprehensive
listing of acceptable toxicity scores. Should such a list be
identified, development of this indicator would be quite simple.
Comparison of Pesticide Indicators
?oundi of Active Ingredient
Acute Tosictly Indicator
rnroEiic 1'uitcitv Indicator
Year
Source: USDA Fconomic Research Service. 1
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
TOXICITY OF THE AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
PRESSURE k STATE k
<^,r- * 7,-> *?T»V^^^ MS**. ?.v42£fti«^^^ <
D.sdwgcs/li Ambient P
KmissL| Conditions!
Lptukc
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
lil'I'KCTS
' <"' ' ' '
.!'"1"11"''
l" '.% k
I lealth Risk
Level 6
Level 7
SOCIKTAI. RKSPONSE
Actions by
Regulated
Community
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYFEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Pesticide Detections in Ground and Surface Water
Many of the pesticides applied in agriculture, homes and
gardens are environmentally transported to rivers, streams,
aquifers and wells. The pesticide contamination of water
supplies poses public health risks and environmental hazards to
fish and wildlife. To minimize the risks to humans, aquatic life
and animal life, water-quality standards and guidelines regarding
the acceptable concentrations of pesticides in water are enforced
by the EPA. It is important to note that these current standards
do not completely eliminate risks because: concentration limits
are not established for many pesticides; pesticide mixes and
breakdown products are not considered; and some types of
possible health effects, such as endocrine disruption, have not
yet been determined.
Despite the uncertainty about the health effects of long-term
exposure to pesticides, it is important to monitor their
concentrations in ground and surface water supplies. Tracking
the trend of pesticide contamination of water reflects the degree
of success of EPA's enforcement of water-quality standards and
provides an estimate of the toxicity of water supplies.
Moreover, the documentation of the geographic distribution of
pesticide detections in water, and of the specific pesticides
detected, provides useful data for researchers trying to link
pesticide exposure with health effects.
In 1992, the U.S. Geological Survey began testing samples of
the nation's water sources for pesticides concentration through
its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.
The NAWQA Program focuses on 36 of the nation's major
hydrologic basins (NAWQA study units), which represents
water resources available to more than 60% of the population.
Data collected from 1992 to 1998 constitute part of the first
cycle of NAWQA and represent two-thirds of what eventually
will be the national data set for pesticides in surface and ground
water. The second cycle of NAWQA data collection will allow
for the comparison of trends over time when study units
systematically are reassessed and an increasing number of sites
will have had 10 years of consistent monitoring.
The three charts show the most frequently detected pesticides in
waters within agricultural areas and urban areas and in large
streams and major aquifers. Key findings from the NAWQA
report, which are not reflected in the charts, include:
More than 90% of water and fish samples from all
streams contained one or, more frequently, several
pesticides.
Approximately 50% of the samples of wells (including
shallow ground water and aquifers) contained one or
more pesticides.
Herbicides were the most common type of pesticide
found in water within agricultural areas.
Insecticides were found to be more prevalent in water
in urban areas than in agricultural areas.
At 30% of NAWQA sampling sites, insecticide
concentrations in fish exceeded guidelines for edible
fish tissue.
Although there were fewer insecticide detections than
herbicide detections, insecticides exceeded drinking-
water guidelines more frequently (the cancelled product
dicldrin was the insecticide that exceeded guidelines in
all but one of the instances).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
136
-------
15 Pesticides Most Frequently Detected in
Agricultural Waters, 1992-1998
= S
a. M_
Chemical Compound
15 Pesticides Most Frequently Detected in
Urban Waters, 1992-1998
Chemical Compound
Notes: t; csiirnaied concentration
Sourer: USCiS. National Water Quality Assessment. Pesticide National
Synthesis Project. 2001.
Scale: National and regional data available for selected hydrologic basins.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: In the NAWQA, the USGS tests for 83
pesticide compounds (76 pesticides and 7 pesticide-breakdown products). These
83 compounds account for 75°o of all synthetic pesticides used in the U.S. This
list includes 17 of the top 20 herbicides and 15 of the top 20 pesticides. The
NAWQA study design comprises an initial 3 to 4 years of intensive study,
followed by 6 to 7 years of low-level monitoring, after which intensive study
resumes to evaluate any water-quality changes. At each site, fish, sediment and
water samples are collected and tested for pesticide concentrations. Although
NAWQA represents the broadest range of pesticides ever included in a single
monitoring system, there are many pesticide compounds not accounted for.
These include inorganic pesticides, biological pesticides and many pesticide
breakdown products.
In the second cycle of studies, beginning in 2001. NAWQA will initiate
assessment of three main categories of contaminants not included in the national
design for the first cycle: (1) selected new pesticides with high usage in
agricultural and populated areas across the Nation, and pesticide degradation
products: (2) indicators of water-borne diseases in streams and ground water that
are sources of drinking water and in streams that are used for water-contact
recreation: and (3) total mercury and methyl mercury in streams that have the
greatest potential for human exposure through the consumption of fish.
References:
L'.S. Geological Survey. 2001. t'esticitk's in Ground Water: Summary
"statixtU:i: Rusiitts of the NA WQA. 1992-1998. 10 January 2003.
Available online at: http://ea.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw'
L'.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Pesticides in Streams: Summon' Statistics:
"Ke.tults/ Our Nation '* Witters: Nutrients
ami /V.v/«'«/«r. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225.
15 Pesticides Most Frequently Detected in
Large Streams and Major Aquifers, 1992 -1998
i.
Chemical Co
INSTITUTE L»r\(
137
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
TOXICITY OF THE AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
PRESSURE
Indicator: National Emissions of Air Toxics
Air toxics, also referred to as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),
are pollutants that may cause adverse human health or
environmental effects. Air toxics are emitted from stationary,
area and mobile sources in the form of particulates or volatile
organic compounds. Human health effects from air toxics are
determined by the concentration of the toxics and length of
exposure and may include cancer or damage to the immune
system, as well as other neurological, reproductive,
developmental, and respiratory problems. Although the primary
exposure pathway is inhalation, exposure to some chemicals
may occur through ingestion.
To monitor the emissions of air toxics, the EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) initiated the
development of the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The NT1
is the central repository for the 188 HAPs from all human-
originated sources. This database tracks emissions from four
sectors: 1) major (large industrial) sources; 2) smaller area and
other sources, which include smaller industrial sources, like
small drycleaners and gasoline stations, as well as natural
sources, like wildfires; 3) on-road mobile sources, including
highway vehicles; and 4) non-road mobile sources, such as
aircraft, locomotives, and construction equipment.
The chart reflects the trend in air toxics emissions from the
baseline period of 1990-1993 to 1996. The baseline period
comprises multiple years because it took four years to complete
the initial inventory. For this reason, the 1990-1993 baseline
can be interpreted to be a "snapshot" inventory in the same way
that the 1996 inventory (which only took one year to complete)
is. From 1996 onward, the NTI has been conducted once every
three years. The next update for 1999 air toxics emissions data
will be made available in 2002.
This indicator illustrates that nationwide air toxics
emissions are estimated to have decreased by
approximately 23% between 1990 and 1996.
National Air Toxics Emissions: Total for 188
Toxic Air Pollutants (Baseline-1996)
[kL«line< I99fl-I99.il
Source: US EPA, National Toxics Inventory, 1999
Scale: Data from NTI is available at the national level, as well as for selected
state and local air agencies.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: NTI data is collected from four
different sources: I) data developed by stale and local air agencies; 2) data from
EPA's Emissions Standards Division, collected and developed for standards
development; .1) data from existing EPA inventories, such as those developed to
support requirements of the Clean Air Act; and 4) emissions reported in the
Toxics Release Inventory Database and emissions that EPA generated using
emission factors and activity factors. While the baseline set of daia collected did
not include facility or location specific information, the 1996 datasct does. This
allows the NTI data to be used as input for computer air quality models.
Changes in the methods used to collect and compile data from all of the relevant
sources may account for some of the variation between these two data points. In
addition to monitoring toxic air emissions and ambient concentrations of air
toxics, the EPA has scheduled to model human exposure, and estimated heaith
risks.
References
US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. 2000. Latest Findings of National Air Quality: I9W
Slants and Trends. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov 'airtrends/.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends. 1900-1998.
Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trcnds/trends98/index.htm!
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
138
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
SAFER CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
Indicator: Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with Biopesticides
Current agricultural production has become heavily dependent
on the use of agricultural pesticides to ensure that supply of
agricultural commodities is consistent with demand. The
potential docs exist, however, for these toxic agricultural
pesticides to adversely affect human and ecological health. To
address this concern, the EPA has established a program
designed to foster the development and use of pesticides that
pose a lower health risk to the humans and the environment.
This indicator describes the use of a particular type of safer
pesticide - biopesticides. Biopesticides are another type of safer
pesticide derived from natural materials such as. animals, plants.
bacteria, and certain minerals. Biopesticides are less harmful than
conventional pesticides since they are designed to affect only
one specific pest, in contrast to conventional pesticides that may
affect many different organisms including birds, insects and
mammals. They are also effective in small quantities and often
decompose quickly, thereby decreasing exposure times and
avoiding pollution problems caused by conventional pesticides
(U.S. EPA 2001).
The following chart illustrates the percentage of agricultural acre
treated with biopesticides between 1998 to 2000.
The number of agricultural acres treated with
biopesticides decreased slightly from 1999 to 2000 but
increased overall between 1998 and 2000.
Not reflected in the chart is the fact that biopesticides
accounted for 1.4% of total agricultural pesticide use in
2000.
Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with
Biopesticides, 1998-2000
£ l2.0CXI,(H«r
<1
"« 7: IllOOOOW
si
g S x.lHXXI
9£ "
^ ;
=^
J » 4.l»K).«ll>'
3 H
i'. J.(l()0.00<)-
Source: Doanc Marketing Research, Inc. data (2001) as summarixed by
F.dward Brandt. Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA
Scale: County, state, and national level
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The dala that were used to
construct this indicator were compiled by Doanc Marketing Research, Inc.
This private research company conducts interviews to estimate pesticide
use on select field and row crops. To summari/c use rates for reduced risk
pesticides. Edward Brandt of the EPA combined the Doanc use rates with
crop specific assessments of whether a particular active ingredient was
considered to be of reduced risk.
References:
Doane Marketing Research, Inc. 2001. AgroTrakT.lf: A
Doani'MarkeTrakTM System Product. 13 January 2003.
Available online at: htlp: www.doanemr.com row-specialty-
turf/agrotrak.htrnl
U.S. Environmcnlal Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
1996. Reduced Risk, IPM and Pollution Prevention. 13 January
2003. Available online at:
/Tttp://www.epa.gov/oppfcad 1 /fqpa/rripmpp.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
2001. Biopesticides. 13 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/pesttcides/citizens/biopcslicides.htm
139
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
SAFER CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
EFFliCTS
f luman/
F.ccilogicnl
Hc;ilih Risk
Level 6
tSOGlKTAI. RESPONSE ^
V-'??'[''" -"''i^,'*"'1'* >-'--ftVlfl^^L
Regubtory Actions bv M
Response's I Rq.i'la««l I
Communiiy
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Agricultural Acres Treated with Reduced Risk
Pesticides
Current agricultural production has become heavily dependent
on the use of agricultural pesticides to ensure that supply of
agricultural commodities is consistent with demand. The
potential does exist, however, for these toxic agricultural
pesticides to adversely affect human and ecological health. To
address this concern, the EPA has established a program
designed to foster the development and use of pesticides that
pose a lower health risk to the humans and the environment.
This indicator describes the use of a type of safer pesticide -
reduced risk pesticides. The EPA defines a reduced risk
pesticide as one which "may reasonably be expected to
accomplish one or more of the following: 1) reduces pesticide
risks to human health; 2) reduces pesticide risks to non-target
organisms; 3) reduces the potential for contamination of valued,
environmental resources; or 4) broadens adoption of Integrated
Pest Management or makes it more effective." An active
ingredient that is categorized as reduced risk is considered such
only if it is being used for the specific application for which it
was registered. For instance, a reduced risk herbicide registered
for use on peanuts would not be considered reduced risk if it
were used to treat winter wheat (U.S. EPA 1996).
The chart illustrates the percentage of agricultural acre treated
with reduced risk pesticides between 1998 and 2000.
The number of agricultural acres treated with reduced
risk pesticides has increased from 21,775.262 acres in
1998 to 48,609,514 acres in 2000.
Not seen in the chart is the fact that reduced risk
pesticides accounted for 5.1% of total agricultural
pesticide use in 2000.
Number of Acres Treated With Reduced Risk
Pesticides, 1998-2000
Source: Doane Marketing Research, Inc. data (2001) as summarized by Edward
Brandt. Office of Pesticide Programs. US UPA
Scale: County, state, and national level
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The data that were used to construct
this indicator were compiled by Doane Marketing Research. Inc. This private
research company conducts interviews to estimate pesticide use on select field
and row crops. To summarize use rates for reduced risk pesticides. Edward
Brandt of the FPA combined the Doane use rates with crop specific assessments
of whether a particular active ingredient was considered to be of reduced risk.
References:
Doane Marketing Research, Inc. 2001. AgroTrukTM: A DoanvMarkeTrakTM
System Product. \ 3 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp:. Vwww .doanemr.coniTow-specialty-turPagrotrak.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 1996.
Ri'JuCftl Risk, IPMami Pollution Prevention. 13 January 2003.
Available online at: h(tp://www.cpa.gov/oppfeadl/fqpa/tripmpp.httn
U.S. Knvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 2001.
Biopesticides. 13 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/biopesticides.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
140
-------
Level 3
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
SAFER CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
TYFEA
TYPED
Level 4
Levels
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Sale of Dry cleaning Equipment Using Safer Chemicals
The drycleaning industry provides garment cleaning, as well as
pressing and finishing services. The process is considered dry
because it uses little to no water. It does, however, use a liquid
solution composed of solvents. Though estimates vary, it is
generally accepted that usage of perchloroethylene, considered
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be a possible
human carcinogen, si ill represents as much as 85% of the
industry. However, the past two decades have seen a decline in
total perc usage from 250 million pounds in 1986 lo only 52 in
2001.
This decline is not directly related to adoption of safer
chemicals, bul upgrades in the early 199()'s to more efficient
machinery. The evolution of technology has been such that so-
called first-generation drycleaning machines used 82 pounds of
perc per 1,000 pounds of clothes cleaned, in contrast to the
newest fourth and fifth -general ion machines thai use no more
than 10 pounds of perc for the same amount of clothing
(National Clothesline 2002).
The ideal measure would show the amount of alternative
chemicals used as a result. However, because these technologies
are relatively new, no such data currently exist. Instead, the
EPA uses sales of environmentally preferable cleaning
equipment as a measure. Environmentally preferable cleaning,
as defined by the EPA, includes three processes: wetcleaning
(which uses water), liquid carbon dioxide, and liquid silicone.
The following charg displays an increase in the sale of
equipment using these processes.
The following chart displays an increase in the sale of
equipment using these processes.
An increasing number of drycleaners are upgrading
their equipment. Only 62 machines of this type were
sold in 1994. versus 426 in 2000.
If all machines are currently still operating, as many as
1,591 environmentally preferable machines are in use.
Sales of Environmentally Preferable Garment
Cleaning Equipment in the U.S.,
1994 to 2000
Source: Data from the l.'SKPA Design for the Knvironrnenl (DfK) Garmenl and
Textile Care Partnership.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Equipment sales dala are as ol March
2001.
References
"('li'ancrs ' pi-n- tux* continues dec/ini: " National Clothesline. August 2002. 30
January 2003. Available online at:
hllp://www iiatclo.com/0208/aa 10.htni
] in.iil corres|«mdence with Bill Linn. Professional Geologist, l-lorida Department
ol' [ nvironmenta! Protection.
i'indings ftnd Accomplislititt'Hts uflln- Design for tlx' Knvimntnctit Garnii-nl find
7'i'Milp Can11'itigram. 30 January 2003. Available1 online at:
hi t p :,'As w^epa .gov/oppt i nt iMIe/pro jens/ga mienl'Tind i ngs. htm
l're<|ucnlly Asked Questions about Drycleaning. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Design for the Environment Caniu-nl and Textile Care Program
. Jura-1998. 30 January 2003. Available online ai:
hii|i://v.wv.cpa.gov/opptmlr/dfe/pubs/garnK>nt/clsa/f
-------
Prafik' of ike Fabricare induxtiy. International Fabric-are Institute. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http://www.ifi.org/industry/in
-------
PRKSSURE
Level 3
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
SAFER CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
Indicator: Annual Pesticide Use on Select Field Crops by Pesticide Product
Signal Word
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains arc not without their trade-offs.
There are many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.
For these reasons, it is important to monitor the agricultural
usage of pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is charged with monitoring the usage of pesticides on
field crops, fruits, vegetables and for livestock and general farm
uses. Every year, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) administers the Agricultural Resources
Management Survey (ARMS) to a sample of farmers.
Information on pesticide usage on field crops is obtained
through this annual survey.
A signal word is included on the product label for all farm
chemicals. The three signal words are CAUTION (slightly toxic
or relatively non-toxic), WARNING (moderately toxic), or
DANGER (highly toxic). Since the formulations of active
ingredients can vary among products, there are instances in
which an active ingredient may have more than one signal word.
This indicator measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide
product signal word. This indicator does not explicitly consider
the risk to human or environmental health posed by each of the
pesticides used. However, because these signal words arc
derived from the acute toxicity classifications of each active
ingredient, they can be inferred to be proxy measures of the
toxicity of pesticides applied.
The chart shows that active ingredients with the signal
word CAUTION represent the largest share of pesticide
usage on field crops in the U.S. The pounds of these
chemicals applied steadily decreased from 0.87 in 1991
to 0.70 in 1998. The rate increased, however, in 1999
to 0.95 Ibs. per acre and in 2000 to 1.08 Ibs. per acre.
DANGER and WARNING chemicals were used at the
next highest rates. The use of DANGER chemicals
decreased from 0.52 Ibs. per acre in 1999 to 0.36 Ibs.
per acre in 2000. The use of WARNING chemicals
decreased from 0.57 Ibs. per acre in 1999 to 0.51 Ibs.
per acre in 2000.
Overall, the share of each signal word of all pesticide
active ingredients applied has remained fairly constant.
Annual Pesticide Use of Select Field Crops by
Pesticide Product Signal Word, 1991-2000
Q St> Eitl'mriutitni
D I lander
{'miiion
1998 1999 2000
143
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: Sclecl field crops include corn, upland cotton, fall potatoes, soybeans and
winter wheat.
Source: USDA NASS. Field Crop Summaries for 1991-2000
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Even1 year, the USDA NASS
administers the ARMS to a sample of farms that produce the crops of interest
that particular year. Although the list of the crops of interest varies from year to
year, ttis indicator tracks pesticide usage on the five field crops that have been
surveyed every year (com, upland cotton, fall potatoes, soybeans and winter
wheat). This is to ensure comparability of the data over time. The operator of
the sampled farm is personally interviewed by NASS staff to obtain information
about chemical applications on the selected field. The survey and the sampling
scheme are designed so that the usage estimates are statistically representative of
chemical use on the targeted crops in the surveyed states. The estimates arc
reviewed for reliability and consistency.
References
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board. Agricultural Chemical
Usage, f-'iclil Crop Summon- (1991-2000). 7 January 2003. Available
online at: http://www.usda.gov/nass.
1999. form (.'hcmicalx Handbook. Willoughby: MeisterPro Publishing
Co.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
144
-------
PRESSURE
Level 3
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
SAFER CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
... J
Level 1
Outputs
J
TYPEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by Pesticide Product
Signal Word
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There are many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.
For these reasons, it is important to monitor the agricultural
usage of pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is charged with monitoring the usage of pesticides on
field crops, fruits, vegetables and for livestock and general farm
uses. Livery year, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) administers the Agricultural Resources
Management Survey (ARMS) to a sample of fanners.
Information on pesticide usage on vegetables is obtained
through this annual survey.
A signal word is included on the product label for all farm
chemicals. The three signal words are CAUTION (slightly toxic
or relatively non-toxic), WARNING (moderately toxic), or
DANGER (highly toxic). Since the formulations of active
ingredients can vary among products, there are instances in
which an active ingredient may have more than one signal word.
This indicator measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide
product signal word. This indicator does not explicitly consider
the risk to human or environmental health posed by each of the
pesticides used. However, because these signal words are
derived from the acute toxicity classifications of each active
ingredient, ihey can be inferred to be proxy measures of the
toxicity of pesticides applied.
The chart shows that active ingredients with the signal
word DANGER represent the largest share of pesticide
usage on vegetables in the U.S. The pounds of these
chemicals applied steadily increased from 8.48 in 1992
lo 11.23 in 1996. The rate decreased in 1998 to 9.85
Ibs. per acre, but then increased again in 2000 to 11,59
Ibs. per acre.
DANGER chemicals have consistently accounted for
greater than 50% of all pesticide active ingredients
applied.
CAUTION chemicals were applied at the next highest
rate. These chemicals accounted for approximately
30% of all pesticides applied each year from 1992 to
1998. Their share decreased to approximately 24% in
2000.
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by
Pesticide Product Signal Word, 1992-2000
B Danger -I'oKnn
D Wamnii: or ( Million
W:,rniiif
n Fonnubtiniu Van-
Q Caution
Danpci
145
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: Select vegetables include asparagus, fresh lima beans, fresh snap beans,
processing snap beans, broccoli, fresh cabbage, processing cabbage, cauliflower.
celery, fresh sweet corn, processing sweet corn, fresh cucumbers, processing
cucumbers, eggplant, head lettuce, other lettuce, watermelons, processing green
peas, bell peppers, fresh spinach, processing spinach, strawberries, fresh
tomatoes, and processing tomatoes.
Source: L'SDA NASS. Vegetable Summaries for 1W2-2000
Scale: Select states are aggregated to illustrate the national situation.
Data C haacleristics aid Liftrions: liver) year, the USDA NASS
administers the ARMS to a sample of farms that produce the vegetables of
interest that particular year. Although the list of the vegetables of interest varies
from year to year, this indicator tracks pesticide usage on the twenty-four
vegetables that have been surveyed every year. This is to ensure comparability
of the data over time. The operator of the sampled farm is personally
interviewed by NASS staff to obtain information about chemical applications on
the selected vegetable. The survey and the sampling scheme are designed so that
the usage estimates are statistically representative of chemical use on the targeted
vegetables in the surveyed states. The estimates arc reviewed tor reliability and
consistency.
References
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Chemical Usage,
Vegetable Summary- (1992-I99X). 7 January 2003. Available online
at: http://www.usda.gov/nass.
_ Farm Chemicals Handbook. Willoughby: MeistcrPro Publishing Co.,
1999.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
146
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
SAFER CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
TYPEA
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level6
I.cvcl 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outcomes
Outputs
J
c
TYPEC
Indicator: Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fruits by Pesticide Product Signal
Word
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There are many publie health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures. There
are also many cases where pesticides have adversely affected
wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.
For these reasons, it is important to monitor the agricultural
usage ofpesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
is charged with monitoring the usage ofpesticides on field crops,
fruits, vegetables and for livestock and general farm uses. F.very
year, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
administers the Agricultural Resources Management Survey
(ARMS) to a sample of farmers. Information on pesticide usage
on fruits is obtained through this annual survey.
A signal word is included on the product label for all farm
chemicals. The three signal words are CAUTION (slightly toxic or
relatively non-toxic). WARNING (moderately toxic), or DANGER
(highly toxic). Since the formulations of active ingredients can
vary among products, there are instances in which an active
ingredient may have more than one signal word. This indicator
measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide product signal
word. This indicator does not explicitly consider the risk to
human or environmental health posed by each of the pesticides
used. However, because these signal words are derived from the
acute toxicity classifications of each active ingredient, they can
be inferred to be proxy measures of the loxicity of pesticides
applied.
The chart shows that active ingredients with the signal
word CAUTION represent the largest share of pesticide
usage on fruits in the U.S. The pounds of these
chemicals applied has increased from 36.9 in 1991 to 42.3
in 1999.
The percentage of CAUTION chemicals applied has
increased from 72% in 1991 to 83% in 1999.
WARNING chemicals were applied at the next highest
rate. However, in 1999. they only accounted for 6% of
all chemicals applied.
The share of each other signal word of all pesticide
active ingredients applied has steadily decreased from
1991 to!999.
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fruits by
Pesticide Product Signal Word, 1991-1999
147
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: USDA NASS, Fniit Summaries for 1991-1999,
Notes: Select fruits include apples, avocados, blackberries, blueberries,
sweet cherries, tart cherries, grapefruit, lemons, oranges, peaches, pears,
raspberries, tangelos, tangerines, and temples.
Scale: Select states are aggregated to illustrate the national situation.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Every year, the USDA NASS
administers the ARMS to a sample of farms that produce the fruits of
interest that particular year. Although the list of the fruits of interest
varies from year to year, this indicator tracks pesticide usage on the fifteen
fruits that have been surveyed every year (apples, avocados, blackberries,
blueberries, sweet cherries, tart cherries, grapefruit, lemons, oranges.
peaches, pears, raspberries, tangelos. tangerines, and temples). This is to
ensure comparability of the data over time. NASS staff, to obtain
information about chemical applications on the selected field, personally
interviews the operator of the sampled farm. The survey and the sampling
scheme are designed so that the usage estimates are statistically
representative of chemical isc on the targeted fruits in the surveyed states.
The estimates are reviewed for reliability and consistency.
References
Farm (.'hcmicals Handbook
1999
Willoughby: Meister Pro Publishing Co.,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board. Agricultural Chemical
Usage, Fruit Summary (1991-1999). 7 January 2003. Available
online at: http://www.usda.gov/nass.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
148
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
PERSISTENT, BIOACCUMULATIVE AND Toxic CHEMICALS
PRESSURE
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TOPE A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Chemical Bioaccumulation in Mussel Tissue
Since 1986, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has administered the Mussel Watch
Project as part of its National Status and Trends Program. The
Mussel Watch Project offers a regional and national picture of
chemical contamination in estuaries, embaymcnts and along
open ocean coastline. Mussel Watch comprises chemical
analyses of whole soft-parts of mussels and oysters for
bioaccumulations of heavy metals and persistent chemicals
known to affect human and wildlife health. The 274 Mussel
Watch sites were chosen to represent large areas rather than
smaller known areas of intensive chemical contamination (e.g.,
waste discharge points). The analysis of mollusk tissue provides
an approximate measure of chemical concentrations in water and
sediments and of bioaccumulation in wildlife.
NOAA prepared this indicator for use in its State of the Coastal
Environment Report. The indicator reports annual median
concentrations from 1986 to 1995 for the following six
chemicals: cadmium, DDT, chlordane, PCBs, butyl tin
compounds and dicldrin. Each of these chemicals exhibits toxic
properties are conducive to long-term ambient monitoring.
Chlordane, DDT and dieldrin are cancelled pesticides that are
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals.
Cadmium is a metal that is known to affect the lungs and
kidneys in humans; it has also shown to be a developmental
toxicant in wildlife. PCBs are a small family of industrial
compounds that are environmentally persistent, bioaccumulative
and have been linked to developmental deformities in birds
(Francis 1994). Tributyltin is a toxic chemical targeted by the
EPA and is a suspected endocrine toxicant.
The chart shows the trends in the levels of these six
contaminants in mollusk tissue from 1986 to 1995 (for butyl tin,
1989-1995).
Median concentrations of cadmium and DDT have
decreased by 28% and 36%, respectively.
Median concentrations of chlordane and dieldrin have
decreased by 63% and 56%, respectively.
Median concentrations of PCBs and butyl tin have
decreased by 49% and 86%, respectively.
Levels of Selected Chemicals in Mollusk Tissue,
1986-1995
(I (Ml
I9S6 I9K7 I9KX 19X9 1991) 199] 1992 1193 1994 1995
Year
Notes: Concentrations measured in micrograms of chemical/gram of dry
mollusk tissue. PCBs are measured in nanogram/gram-dry.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Mussel Watch
Project.
Scale: Data are available on the regional and national levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: NOAA has been collecting tissue
sample and analy/ing them for chemical contamination since 1986 at 274 sites
(current). Monitored metals and chemicals include:
Trace Metals:
Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper. Lead. Nickel, Mercury, Selenium, Zinc
Organic Compounds:
Total DDT. Total Chlordane, Total Dieldrin. Total PCBs, Total
PAHs, and Total Butyl Tin.
The metal and organic compounds selected for inclusion in the indicator all
experienced declines in mean concentration over the period. Other metals and
chemicals showed no change.
149
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
References
['nvinmmental Defense Scorccard. List uf recognized and suspected endocrine
toxicants. 13 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.seorccard.org/hcallh-eftccts/
Francis. B. Magnus. 1994. Toxic Substances in the Environment. New Yurie:
John Wiley & Sons.
O'Connor. Tom. 199X. "Chemical Contaminants in Oysters and Mussels" In
\()AA '.v Stale of the Ciia.it Report. 13 January 2003. Available
online at:
http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html.ccom 05/ccom.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards. Cadmium ami Compounds. 14 January 2003. Available
online at: http://www.cpa.gov/ttn/atw/hUhcC'cadmium.hlml
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Toxics Reduction Team.
/.<'\x'/ // Suhstaitrfs on lite Binationul Toxic* Strategy. 14 January
2003. Available online at
http:"www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns levelii/leviisubs.html
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
150
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
TOXICITY OF THE AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
PRKSSURE
i luman/
Ecolojpcal
I lealth Risk
TYPEA
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
I
TYPEC
Indicator: Toxicity Index for Persistent, Bioaccum illative, and Toxic
Chemical Releases
Persistent, bioaccumulativc, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) arc
substances that slowly build up in people and the environment
over time. In general, PBTs may be hazardous to human and
ecological health. The hazard to human and ecological health
from PBTs may occur immediately or after symptoms may begin
to show in subsequent years. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is currently developing action plans to reduce
the risk of PBTs to both human and ecological health (U.S. EPA
2002).
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxkities of the individual chemicals. These toxicities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release. To redress this
limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. The
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating a toxicity score for each chemical.
The toxicity score is multiplied by the pounds of chemical
released or managed in waste; the toxicity of each chemical
release and waste stream can be aggregated to provide an
estimate of the total toxicity of releases and managed waste for a
given year.
This measure can have implications for both human and
ecological health, with declining trends in the total toxicity of
chemical releases and managed waste implying potential for a
more healthful environment. The measure also has implications
for the success of governmental pollution prevention programs
and for activities conducted by the private sector to improve
pollution related efficiencies.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unitlcss
measure of toxicity. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of toxicity
over time. For this indicator, the toxicity of releases and
managed waste was adjusted to create an index. It is
conventional to present unitless data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the estimate of toxicity of releases and managed
waste for the baseline year was adjusted to equal a value of 100;
subsequent estimates reflect changes from that baseline of 100.
If industries are maintaining or improving pollution efficiencies
or succeeding at pollution prevention, then the index should
display constant or declining trends.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
toxicity of releases into the environment and managed chemical
waste. It can be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in pollution prevention and improving
pollution efficiencies.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Three different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of chemicals
that have been reported every year since the inception of TRI in
1988; however, the chart reflects data beginning in 1992, which
is when recycling, energy recovery and treatment operations
151
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
were incorporated into TRI. The second chart reflects data for
an enhanced list of chemicals that have been reported every year
from 1995 to 2000. The third chart reflects the expansion of the
TRI in 1998 which added the reporting of releases and managed
wastes from seven new economic sectors: electric utilities, coal
mining, metal mining, chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk
plants and terminals, solvent recovery and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal.
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed
Waste of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic
Chemicals (Core Chemicals List), 1992-2000
Other
Fjieriiy Re
P Lfapoval
I Un
Water
Air
I'OTtts
rreatmcnt
3 Land
Rccycylng
19%
Vear
The toxicity index for the core chemicals list shows
some annual variation, and a decrease overall from 100
in 1992 to 70 in 2000.
Waste recycling accounts for the vast majority (over
80%) of the toxicity index for the core chemicals list.
Toxicity Index of Release and Managed Waste
for Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic
Chemicals (Enhanced Chemicals List),
1995-2000
Urlderiiirouti
Other
POTWs
3 Disposal
Water
Air
n lTnenz> Ro:
Treatment
-Uml
The toxicity index for the enhanced chemicals list
shows some annual variation, and a decrease overall
from 100 in 1995 to 77 in 2000.
Again, waste recycling and other management methods
account for the majority of the risk from PBTs.
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Computer queries of
Mammal summary data prepared [-"ebniary 2003.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can he viewed on the national level, as well as
by KPA regions, states, counties, cities, and xip codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reilecl human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: to.xicity and health risk. The
RSKI incorporates toxicily scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and priorili/e chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting,
and community-based environmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
Iron) toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: releases (air, water, land,
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works IPO'I AVs]).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air, discharges to bodies of water,
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
to air are reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or slack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste
treatment (biological treatment, nculrali/acion, incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There arc several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory-. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are nol
required to file reports. Prior to 1WX, non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1WK, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining,
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
ha/ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources arc not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
does not require that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are
used where monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage. Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recogni/e that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are nol sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
152
-------
Environmental Indicators model, however, ean allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References
I9VV Toxics Keli'tisi,' Inventory: Puhlic Darn Release. U.S. En\ ironmenlal
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
August 2000. Printed copies are also available and may he ordered
online from: U.S. lil'A NSCEP. Attn.: Publieation Orders. P.O. (iox
4241'), Cincinnati. OH 45242-2419, Fax: (513)489-S695, Phone:
(800)490-yi9X. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
Iittp:>7www.epa.gov7tri/lridata/lri00/indcx.htni.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators." Fact Sheet. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1. 1999.
Tti\ies Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indieatars
Methutloluxy. U.S. linvironmcnliil Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User's Manual for EPA '.v Ri\k Screening Knvironmental Indicators .Mwlel:
I 'erxion I.II-. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevail ion and Toxics. November 15, 1994.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as olhcr information relating to Risk Screening bnvironmcmal
Indicators are available on at: hllp://www.cpa.gov/opplintr/rsei/. 31 January
2003. In obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance
Information Service, (202) 554-1404, Tsca-hotlincfuepa.gov).
153
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
PERSISTENT, BIOACCLMULATIVE, AND Toxic CHEMICALS
PRESSURE
EFFECTS
Discharges
Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
Bodv
Hujxk-n/
I'p take
Level 5
Outcomes
I
HuHian/
Ideological
I Icalth Risk
Level 6
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs |
TYPEC
Indicator: PCBs and Persistent Pesticide Detections in Fish and Bed Sediment
While many of the harmful pesticides historically used for
agriculture are no longer used in the U.S. today, evidence of
them can still be detected in air, precipitation, soil, sediment, and
biota. A group of pesticides known as the organochlorine (OC)
pesticides are particularly well known for their persistence in the
environment due to their hydrophobicity (low water solubility).
Most OC pesticides were canceled or restricted during the
1970's because of potential human and wildlife health effects,
their tendency to bioaccumulate, and their ability to persist in the
environment (U.S. EPA 1990). In general, OC pesticides have
moderate to high chronic toxicity, are associated with
developmental and/or reproductive effects in animal studies, and
many are also considered to be probable human carcinogens
(Nowell and others, 1999). PCBs, an industrial contaminant of
high concern, is often included in persistent chemical analyses
because its physical and chemical properties are similar to those
of the OC pesticides, so that it too, tends to accumulate in bed
sediment and biota.
Due to the known harmful effects of these chemical compounds,
it is important to monitor their concentrations not only in water,
but also in bed sediment and aquatic biota. In hydrologic
systems, these compounds may be detected in bed sediment or
aquatic biota even when concentrations in the water column are
too low to be detected using conventional sampling and
analytical methods. Sampling bed sediment and aquatic biota
provides a sensitive means of determining whether
organochlorine compounds persist in a given hydrologic system.
Monitoring pesticide accumulation in fish and bed sediment is
also useful data for researchers trying to link pesticide exposure
with health effects such as endocrine disruption.
The U.S. Geological Survey began testing samples of the
nation's fish and bed sediment for pesticides concentration
through its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Program beginning in 1992. The NAWQA Program focuses on
36 of the nation's major hydrologic basins (NAWQA study
units), which represents water resources available to more than
60% of the population. Data collected from 1992 to 199S
constitute part of the first cycle of NAWQA and represent two-
thirds of what eventually will be the most extensive national
data set that contains both bed sediment and aquatic biota tissue
data for the same sites in U.S. rivers and streams. The second
cycle of NAWQA data collection will allow for the comparison
of trends over time when study units systematically are
reassessed and an increasing number of sites will have had 10
years of consistent monitoring.
The four charts below show the most frequently detected
pesticides in fish and bed sediment within agricultural areas,
forest and rangclands, mixed land use areas, and urban areas.
Key findings from the NAWQA studies include:
Detection frequencies were higher in fish rather than in
sediment, while total DDT was the most frequently
detected compound.
Urban streams had the highest frequencies of
occurrence of DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, and PCBs in
both fish and sediment samples.
Sediment quality guidelines for protection of aquatic
life were exceeded at nearly 40 percent of urban sites,
and concentrations in whole fish exceeded guidelines
for protection of wildlife at 20 percent of urban sites.
Pesticide Detections in Fish and Bed Sediment
Agricultural Lands, 1992-1998
Toi. l)l» IX-klnn Toe I'd! T«. (hktdaiK
Chemical Compound
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
154
-------
Pesticide Detections in Fish and Bed Sediment
Forest and Rangeland, 1992 - 1998
f
i>«kimi TOI. na
Chemical Compound
Pesticide Detections in Fish and Bed Sediment
Mixed Use, 1992-1998
I
al Compound
Pesticide Detections in Fish and Sediment
Urban Kand, 1992-1998
Diddrm 7»i. ITU
ChemicMl Compound
Notes: Total DDT sum of DDT plus its degradation products. Total PCB -
Source: USGS, National Water Quality Assessment, Pesticide National
Synthesis Project. 2001.
Scale: National and regional data available for selected hydrologic basins.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: In the NAWQA, the USGS tests for S3
pesticide compounds (76 pesticides and 7 pesticide-breakdown products). These
83 compounds account for 75% of all synthetic pesticides used in the U.S. This
list includes 17 of the lop 20 herbicides and 15 of the top 20 pesticides. The
NAWQA study design comprises an initial 3 to 4 years of intensive study,
followed by b to 7 years of low-level monitoring, after which intensive study
resumes to evaluate any water-quality changes. At each site. fish, sediment and
water samples are collected and tested for pesticide concentrations. Although
NAWQA represents the broadest range of pesticides ever included in a single
monitoring system, there are many pesticide compounds not accounted for.
These include inorganic pesticides, biological pesticides and many pesticide
breakdown products.
In the second cycle of studies, beginning in 2001. NAWQA will initiate
assessment of three main categories of contaminants not included in the national
design for the first cycle: (I) selected new pesticides with high usage in
agricultural and populated areas across the Nation, and pesticide degradation
products: (2) indicators of water-borne diseases in streams and ground water that
arc sources of drinking water and in streams that are used for water-contact
recreation: and (3) total mercury and melhylmcreury in streams that have the
greatest potential for human exposure through the consumption offish.
References:
Nowcll, L.H., C'apcl, IMX.and Dileanis, P.D. 199'). Pesticides in stream
sediment and aquatic biota: Distribution, trends, and governing
factors: Boca Raton, Kla., CRC Press, Pesticides in the Hydrologic
System series, v.4. 1040 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. DDT. a review of scientific and
economic aspects of the decision to ban its use as a pesticide: L'-S.
tn\ ironmenlal Protection Agency. EPA-540.1 -75-022. 300p.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Pesticides in Ground Water: Summary
Statistics; Results of the NAWQA. 1992-199X. 10 January 2003.
Available online at: http://ca.watcr.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw/
U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Pesticides in Stream.*: Summary Statistics;
Results of the NAWQA. 1992-1998. 10 January 200.3. Available online at:
http://ea.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pcstsw/
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. The Qualiry <>/Our \aiitm '.v Waters: Nutrients
tiiul Pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 122?.
v-x ,- ^ . . ,
155
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level 3
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS
Level 4
EFFECTS k SOCIETAL RESPONSE k
Tcnai*c»aKB'LJi4iKr*..*^^^^'v? '.' .-<~-;--"-T--:;; : *; -.. ..-,.,.. ;-&:4^^^^
Human/ |,0,|npnd/ Rcgulat()rv 1 Actions by B|
Lcotoincal f ||um;i:1 | R(.;' ,; | Regulated |^
Health Risk Ik-jlih Community
Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
Outcomes ,| Outputs
TYPEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Certified Organic Farmland Acres
Organic agriculture is the production of food and fiber that docs
not use synthetic chemical pesticides or fertilizers. Emphasis is
placed on developing biological diversity in the growing
environment and maintaining soil fertility through natural
processes. Foods produced organically undergo minimal
processing without artificial ingredients, synthetic preservatives,
or irradiation.
Certified organic products have been produced according to
strict standards that are verified by independent public or private
certifiers. Currently, each state manages its own certification
process and standards. However, with authority from the
Organic Food Production Act of 1990. the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has promulgated guidelines for national
standards for organic agricultural production.
This indicator measures the trend in the number of acres in farm
production that meet organic certification requirements. Since
organic agriculture rejects synthetic toxic pesticides and
chemical fertilizers, growth or decline in certified organic
farmland acreage represents changes in agriculture practices less
reliant on commercial pesticides or chemicals.
Total certified organic farmland acreage increased by
44% between 1992 and 1997, 76% between 1997 and
2000, and 16% between 2000 and 2001.
Approximately 2.35 million acres of farmland were
organically certified in 2001.
In spite of a fairly rapid rate of growth during the 1992-
2001 period, certified organic cropland acreage still
represents only 0.3% of all U.S. cropland acreage.
U.S. Certified Organic Farmland Acreage,
1992-2001
e 1,000,000
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service < 1992-1994), Agrisystcms
International (1995), USDA Economic Research Scrvice(1997, 2002),
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The USDA Kconomic Research Service
obtained membership directories, acreage reports and other sources of certified
acreage and livestock from 40 State and private organic certifiers to calculate
estimates. Uncertified organic production is excluded from these estimates, even
though it may represent a large segment of organic production, because of
difficulty in determining production criteria used by uncertified growers.
Certified organic acreage and livestock estimates were calculated by State and by
commodity.
References
Organic Farming Research Foundation. Frequently Asked Questions About
Organic Farming. 13 January 2003. Available online at:
http:/'www.ofrf.org/general/about_organic/index.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Organic
Farming ami Marketing. 13 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.crs.usda.gov/Brictlng/Organic/
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Kconomic Research Service. Organic
Production Data. 13 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.ors.usda.gov/Data/organic/data/farmland9201.xls
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
156
-------
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE SAFETY AND USE
ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS
PRESSURE W STATE k
m* m
Discharges. =* Amhient f^
Emissions ( onditions I
EFFECTS
Level 3
Level 4
Body
rUmierl,
I ptakc
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Actions by
Reguhited
<;<>mnKmit\' I
Regulatory
Responses
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 1
Level 2
.J
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Acres in Integrated Pest Management
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines
integrated pest management (1PM) as "the coordinated use of
pest and environmental information with available pest control
methods to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment." (1998). Proponents of
IPM believe that it offers the best opportunity to reduce
environmental and human health risk resulting from exposure to
pesticides, protect and conserve natural resources, make farming
more profitable, and provide high-quality and safe foods and
agricultural products.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in cooperation
with the EPA, has identified four general components of IPM
(2001): prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression. The
purpose of prevention practices is to prevent the infestation of
the pest and includes practices such as, the use of disease
resistant varieties, and pest-free seeds/transplants. Avoidance is
used where some level of infestation may exist but serious
problems can be avoided through appropriate practices such as.
crop rotation, using trap crops, and selective planting.
Monitoring involves surveying and scouting conditions to
determine what needs to be done rather than routinely applying
pesticides. Suppression involves utilizing a variety of cultural.
physical, biological, and chemical pesticides practices to prevent
or eliminate pests.
While data on the use of pest management practices exists
(USDA 1997-2000), currently there is no complete, practical
and acceptable method to measure overall IPM adoption. IPM
data is presented in a disaggregate manner by crop, specific pest
management practice, location, and percent of acres or farms
using IPM practices. An attempt to create an overall IPM
measure was made by scientists through the creation of a
weighted index, (PAMS Diversity Index) however, the process
to weigh each IPM practice is a complex and time-consuming
task (Coble 1998). The creation of this index or a similar
measure was not complete as of the date of this publication.
Without a reliable summary measure, conclusions can only be
drawn on the extent individual pest management practices have
been used for major field crops and selected fruits and
vegetables. The completion of a summary 1PM index would
provide a strong measure of progress of the use of techniques
that would minimize the need for and use of chemical pesticides.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Pest Management Practices Summaries
are based largely on data compiled (rum a nationwide farmer survey conducted
annually since 1997. The results refer to responses from sampled producers
concerning specific practices. The producers were first asked how many acres of
a specific commodity they grew that year, followed by questions regarding the
use of specific pest management practices, in yes/no format. Pests were defined
as weeds, insects, and diseases. If the respondent used a specific practice on a
crop, it was assumed that the practice was used an all acres of that crop. The
data are published in two tables for each crop: percent of acres receiving the
specific pest management practice and percent of farms using the specific pesl
management practice.
References
Coble. 1 Jarold. 1998. "A New Tool for Measuring the Resilience of 1PM
Systems The PAMS Diversity Index". IPM Measurement Systems
Workshop. Chicago. IL. June 12-13'". .10 January 2003. Available
online at: hltp:..www.farmlandinlb.orgcue wp sp98-1 ipmpams.htm
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. Pext \funaf>i-mcnt i'rm-ticcs. 1097-1000
Summary. 30 January 2003. Available on line at:
http://usda.mann lib.Cornell.edu/reports.'n;issr/other/pest/pestan() I .pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Pest Management Practices in VS.
A^riculturi.'. Agricultural Handbook No. 717. 30 January 2003.
Available online at: ht1p://www.crs.usda.gov'publications ah7!7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 199X. Intexmted Pi-xl Miimigi'mfnl. 30
January 2003. Available online at:
htlp.'/w'ww.cpa.gov/pesticides/food/ipm.him
157
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
ENVIROMENTAL
ISSUE 4:
FOOD SAFETY
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Percent of Foods Sampled with Detectable Pesticide Residues
Percent of Foods Sampled with Pesticide Residues that Violated or Were Presumed to
Violate Tolerances
Percent of Foods Sampled with Detectable Industrial Chemical Residues
U.S. Annual Volume of Pesticide Usage by Type of Active Ingredient
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Field Crops by Type of Active Ingredient
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by Type of Active Ingredient
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fruits by Type of Active Ingredient
Percent of Harvested Acres where Farmer Reported Use of a Genetically Modified Variety
Percent of Imported Foods Sampled with Detectable and Violative Pesticide Residues
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 4:
FOOD SAFETY
The EPA's 2000 Strategic Plan states that "the foods Americans eat will be free from unsafe
pesticide residues." For the purposes of this project, it was determined that it was important
to measure not only the degree to which foods are affected by the use of pesticides, but also
the degree to which other industrial chemicals might affect food safely. Other industrial
chemicals include chemical classes such as dioxins, furans, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). There is a great deal more information regarding pesticides than there is for indus-
trial chemicals in the context of food safely. This relative wealth of pesticide information is
presented in the indicators in this section. The common definition of a pesticide is "any
agent used to kill or control undesired insect, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other or-
ganism" (EPA 1999). The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that approximately $7.5 billion is spent each year
in the United States on agricultural pesticides (USDA. 1996). As an industry that many argue is essential to the sustained
production of food not only the U.S., and throughout the world, there is considerable pressure to ensure that the benefits
of pesticide use outweigh the costs. While the degree to which benefits must outweigh costs is obviously difficult to
quantify, the EPA has worked diligently to ensure that the risks posed to the population by pesticide use are as low as
possible. It is also the goal of the EPA to ensure that these risks continue to decline. The set of indicators that compose
this issue can be separated into five different dimensions. These are pesticide residues, industrial chemical residues,
agricultural pesticide use, biotechnology, and international food safety.
Issue Dimensions
Pesticide Residues
Pesticides are used to enhance the agricultural yield and avoid the use of marginal land for crops by reducing the number
of pests that prey on the crops. Scientific evidence suggests that some pesticides used to protect agricultural products
may adversely affect human and biological health. While the EPA is responsible for registering pesticides and establish-
ing the specific tolerances (maximum amounts of residues that are permitted in or on food) associated with those pesti-
cides, the Food and Drug Administration bears the principal authority for monitoring the majority of the U.S. food
supply. Extensive scientific review has determined reasonable limits of pesticide exposure. These limits are used to
guide the monitoring of the U.S. food supply. The indicators identified in this section provide information on the degree
to which the U.S. food supply is tainted by harmful pesticide residues.
Industrial Chemical Residues
Though there is limited information regarding the degree to which industrial chemical residues affect the U.S. food
supply, this issue is still one of great importance. Industrial chemicals released into the environment can be absorbed
into crops during their growth. They can also be absorbed into animals or fish either by direct absorption from the
animals" habitats or by consuming other animals that have accumulated toxic chemicals in their tissues. By consuming
these chemically tainted foods, humans absorb toxic substances into their bodies. Scientific research has shown that
certain types of these chemicals may adversely affect human health. The chemical groups that arc currently of greatest
concern are dioxins. furans. and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Dioxins and furans are chemicals that are inadvert-
ently produced by a variety of human activities. Natural processes can also produce these chemicals. PCBs. on the other
hand, are man-made. In 1977, the production of these chemicals was ceased, but only after 1.5 billion pounds had
already been manufactured in the United States (EPA. 2000). The indicator presented in this section provides guidance
on the types of data that are necessary to fully understand this issue.
161
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Agricultural Pesticide Use
The United States, as much of the world, has become reliant on the use of pesticides in the production of food. Pesticide
use is believed to enable farmers to produce greater quantities and varieties of food at lower costs. Pesticide products.
however, are developed from chemicals that have potentially harmful effects. To ensure that the food produced is safe
for consumption, the EPA thoroughly reviews pesticides before allowing them to be sold for use in agricultural produc-
tion. The objective of this regulation for the producers of pesticides used in the production of foods is to find ways to
make their products safer over time.
The pesticides used to enhance agricultural production are commonly separated into four different categories: herbi-
cides, insecticides, fungicides, and other conventional pesticides. Other conventional pesticides include chemicals used
as rodenlicides. nematicides, and fumigants. Some pesticide use estimates also account for chemicals registered as
pesticides but produced mostly for other purposes (e.g. sulfur and petroleum). It is estimated that, of the three major
categories of pesticides, insecticides are generally the most toxic followed by herbicides and then fungicides. These
estimates are based on both chronic and acute toxicity scores (USDA. 1996). The indicators presented in this section
illustrate overall trends in pesticide use as well as per acre application volumes of pesticides for major agricultural
sectors.
Biotechnology
The concept of biotechnology, as it applies to the current scientific and political debate, can be defined as "the use of
cellular and molecular processes to solve problems" (BIO, 2000). A paper written by Marshall Martin, et al, and pub-
lished by the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, defines biotechnology as "a set of tools that utilize living
organisms or parts of organisms to make or modify products, to improve plants or animals for agriculture, or to engineer
microorganisms for specific purposes" (Martin, 1996). While the debate has been invigorated in recent years, the
techniques of biotechnology have been used for centuries to breed livestock or to produce foods, such as bread, cheese.
beer, wine, pickles, and yogurt. Current attempts at genetic modification of pesticides and crops have been regarded
with a substantial amount of caution.
Biotechnology is a highly contentious issue. There is without doubt enormous potential to achieve a wide variety of
benefits in terms of meeting human needs with more productive agricultural and livestock industries. There are other
interests among the public and the scientific community who are deeply concerned that rapid and unregulated develop-
ment of biotechnological products exposes society to a range of serious and possibly catastrophic outcomes. Due to its
emerging character, the development of biotechnology indicators is relatively limited, but will become the subject of
work in future years.
Import/ExportInternational Food Safety
As the world's economies increasingly globalize, the volume of food moving across international borders increases. In
1998, the United States imported nearly $42 billion worth of agricultural products from other countries (FAO 2000).
This amount has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. While technological advances around the world have
made the production of food more efficient and generally of higher quality, food safety will continue to play an important
role in the internationalization of food production. John Lupien, the Director of the Food and Nutrition Division of the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). states: "as the volume of food traded increases, the
potential increases for exposing consumers in one country to the food quality and safety-related problems of other
regions of the world" (CAST, 1998).
Consumers of imported food in the U.S. are protected by several different entities. The U.S. is a member of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission. This commission, which is a joint program of the FAO and the World Health Organi/ation,
is responsible for the establishment of an international food standard that guides the processes that are used throughout
the cycle of food production in the world. In the U.S., the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
"enforces animal and plant import and export regulations to help ensure that foreign pests and diseases are not introduced
into this country and that U.S. agricultural products meet the standards of importing countries" (1997). Additionally.
both the USDA's pesticide monitoring program and the FDA's pesticide residue monitoring program are involved in
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
162
-------
testing foods eaten by consumers in the U.S. for residues on foods that have been imported. The indicator that is
presented in this section is taken from FDA data and illustrates trends in the proportion of imported foods that contain
pesticide residues.
References
Biotechnology Information Organi/ation. 2000. What is Biotechnology? Available online at: http://www.bio.org/aboutbio/
«uide2000/whatis.html.
Codex Alimentarius Commission. 1999. Understanding the Codex Alimentarius. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/w9l 14e/w9114e00.htm.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1998. Food Safety. Sufficiency, and Security. Available online at:
http://www.cast-science.org/fsss/fsss.htm.
Food and Agriculture Organization oi'the United Nations. 2000. FAO Statistical Databases. Available online at: http:/
/apps. fao.org.
Hallman, William and Jennifer Metcalfe. 1995. "Public Perceptions of Agri-biotechnology." Genetic Engineering.
v.l5. n.13.
Martin Marshall, et al. 1996. Agricultural Biotechnology: Before You Judge. Purdue University Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. Available online at: http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/ID/lD-201.html.
Schafer, William. 1990. Food: How Safe is Safe? University of Minnesota Extension Service. Available online at:
http://www.extension. umn.edu/distribution/nutrilion/DJ5524.html.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 1997. Agricultural Trade. Available
online at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/new/at.html.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Natural Resources and Environment Division. 1997.
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. 1996-1997. Available online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/
pdf/ah7!2/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 1999. The EPA and Food Security. Available
online at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/secuily.hlm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 2000. Welcome to the PCB Home
Page at EPA! Available at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 2000. Food and Drug Administra-
tion Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999. Available online at: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pesrpts.html.
163
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
FOOD SAFETY
PESTICIDE RESIDUES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
J Outputs
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Percent of Foods Sampled with Detectable Pesticide Residues
Most of the food produced for human consumption is grown
using pesticides. Chemical control of weeds, insects, fungi and
rodents has allowed the pesticide-using world to intensify
agriculture and increase its productivity. However, these
economic benefits are not without their risks to human and
environmental health. Because pesticides are so widely used in
agriculture, they may remain as residues on fruits, vegetables,
grains and other foods. These pesticide residues are a public
health concern because, in certain doses, pesticides are known to
cause acute and chronic health effects.
To prevent the occurrence of these adverse health effects, the
U.S. EPA is charged to establish maximum allowable residue
"tolerances" for pesticides and the Food and Drug
Administration monitors and regulates the U.S. food supply for
compliance with these tolerances. In addition, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
collects data on pesticide residues on food. Since 1991, the PDP
has tested fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy and processed
products for residues of more than 160 different pesticides. The
PDP relies on random sampling of food commodities to provide
realistic estimates of the population's exposure to pesticide
chemicals. The chart displays the foods sampled by the PDP
from 1994 to 2000 with detectable pesticide residues.
Single residue detections on sampled food commodities
exhibit a stable through 1999 ranging between 25 to
29% of sampled foods each year. In 2000, single
residue detection on sampled food dropped to 22%.
Multiple residue detections on sampled food
commodities declined after an initial rise: from 36% of
sampled foods in 1994 to 29% in 1998. However, there
was another rise in 1999 and remained steady in 2000
at 35%.
Pesticide Residue Detection on Foods Sampled,
by Number of Residues Detected, 1994-2000
Q Single RI.-.II|IIC
esidues I
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program. 1994-2000
Scale: Data is collected I'rom selected stales and aggregated to illustrate national
trends.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: PDP samples are collected by 10
participating States, which represent all regions of the country and 50% of the
national population. Samples are collected close to the point of consumption, at
end markets and large chain store distribution centers. The PDl*'s sampling
strategy is statistically reliable and allows for realistic estimation of pesticide
residues in the total food supply and of consumer exposure to these pesticide
chemicals.
Data are available annually and reported by food product and pesticide for which
the food product was tested.
References
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. /V.v/iViWf Dtiia
I'rogram: Annual Summary (C'alendar years 1993-2000).
II February 2003. Available online at:
h tip: //www. ams. usda. go v/sc icnce/pdp/
Overall, detectable residues on sampled foods have
risen from 61% in 1994 to 64% in 1999 but decreased
to 57% in 2000.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
164
-------
PRKSSURI-:
Discharges/
Hmissions
Level 3
FOOD SAFETY
PESTICIDE RESIDUES
Level 4
Level S
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Percent of Foods Sampled with Pesticide Residues that Violated or
Were Presumed to Violate Tolerances
Most of the food produced for human consumption is grown
using pesticides. Chemical control of weeds, insects, fungi and
rodents has allowed the pesticide-using world lo intensify
agriculture and increase its productivity. However, these
economic benefits arc not without their risks to human and
environmental health. Because pesticides are so widely used in
agriculture, they may remain as residues on fruits, vegetables,
grains and other foods. These pesticide residues are a public
health concern because, in certain doses, pesticides are known to
cause acute and chronic health effects. To prevent the
occurrence of these adverse health effects, the RPA sets a
tolerance, which is the amount of pesticide residue allowed to
remain on a food commodity. A violation occurs when a residue
is detected that exceeds the tolerance or when a residue is found
for which there is no tolerance set for that specific crop.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program
(POP) is charged with monitoring and collecting data on
pesticide residues on food. Since 1991, the PDF has tested
fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy and processed products for
residues of more than 160 different pesticides. The PDP relies
on random sampling of food commodities to provide realistic
estimates of the population's exposure to pesticide chemicals.
The chart displays the foods sampled by the PDP from 1993 to
2000 that had residues that violated or were presumed to violate
(i.e., no tolerance level was established for that crop) tolerances.
From 1991 to 1998, less than 0.2% of all sampled foods
had residues that violated established tolerances.
In 1999, the percent of all sampled foods having
residues that violated established tolerances increased
to 0.3%.
However, in 2000 the percent of all sampled foods
having residues that violated established standards went
back down to 0.2% percent.
Despite a generally high trend in the percent of foods
sampled that violated or were presumed to violate
tolerances between 1995 and 1999, in 2000 the
percentage decrease substantially.
Percent of Foods Sampled that Violated or
Were Presumed to Violate Tolerances
1993-2000
165
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: U.S. Department of Agricultures Pesticide DaUi Program, 1993-2000
Scale: Data are collected from select states and aggregated to illustrate national
(rends.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: POP samples arc collected by 10
participating States, which represent all regions of the country and 50% of the
national population. Samples are collected close to the point of consumption, at
end markets and large chain store distribution centers. The POPS sampling
strategy is statistically reliable and allows for realistic estimation of pesticide
residues in the total food supply and of consumer exposure to these pesticide
chemicals.
Data are available annually and reported by food product and pesticide for which
the food product was tested.
References
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Sen-ice. Pesticide Dam
Program: Annual Summary- (Calendar years 1993-2000).
11 February'2003. Available online at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp;.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Selling
Tolerances for Pesticide Residues in l-'oods. 20 November 2002.
Available online at: http:www.epa.iiov pesticides citizens.stprf.hlm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
166
-------
Level 3
Level 4
FOOD SAFETY
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL RESIDUES
Level 5
Outcomes
ctions by
Regulated
j>mmunirv
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
i Outputs i
TYPE A
TYPEC
Indicator: Percent of Foods Sampled with Detectable Industrial Chemical
Residues
An overwhelming amount of the literature available regarding
chemical residues found on foods is related to agricultural
chemicals and pesticides. Understanding the presence of
chemical residues that originate from other sources, however, is
also important in assessing the safety of the food supply. The
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expressed serious
concern about the effect that residues of dioxins, which are
industrial by-products, or PCBs, which are restricted use
industrial chemicals, may have on human health. The FDA has
stated that these groups of compounds "include chemicals thai
may be carcinogens at low levels of exposure over extended
periods of time and may have other lexicological effects."
Currently, there arc no tolerances established that regulate the
levels of dioxins allowed in food. The tolerances for PCBs are
outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Parts
109.30 and 509.30.
It is the responsibility of the FDA to enforce the PCB tolerances
mandated in the Federal Code. To satisfy this requirement, the
FDA includes industrial chemicals (e.g. PCBs) in the list of
chemicals covered by their pesticide monitoring program.
While the findings regarding industrial chemicals are presented
in the analytical data files that are published, the results are
typically excluded from the summary data files. It is for this
reason that no data set is included with this indicator. Due to the
analytical complexity required to summari/.e this data in a
manner that would lend itself to presentation in an indicator, this
indicator is considered to be a Type B.
Scale: Data is collected from select states and aggregated lo show national
trends.
References
US Kood and Drug Administration, (.'enter for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. US Food and Drug Administration Pesticide Monitoring
Datahtixe: User's Manual. 20 November 2002. Available online at:
hltpi ''vni.clsan.fda.gov/~dms/pes99usr. html
U.S. Hood and Drug Administration. C'cnter for Veterinary Medicine. Diuxin.
20 November 2002. Available online at:
hUp://www.fda.gov/cvrn/fda/mappgs/dinxin.html
167
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Discharges/
I Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
FOOD SAFETY
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
EFFliCTS
Hody
Burden/
I Iptakc
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/
Lcoli it>
llcalili Risk
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
J
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: U.S. Annual Volume of Pesticide Usage by Type of Active Ingredient
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contribuled to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There are many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems. For these reasons, it
is important to monitor the agricultural usage of pesticides.
This indicator measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide
type. Although this indicator docs not explicitly consider the
toxicity of the pesticides used, one can cautiously infer relative
toxicity according to pesticide type. According to the USDA,
insecticides generally are more toxic than herbicides, which are
both usually more toxic than fungicides. Again, this indicator
measures only usage and not toxicity or risk.
* From 1979 to 1997, the volume of herbicides used
decreased by 4.7%.
* From 1979 to 1997, the volume of insecticides used
decreased by 56.4%.
From 1979 to 1997, the volume of fungicides used
decreased by 7.0%.
From 1979 to 1997, the volume of other conventional
pesticides used increased by 55.7%.
* From 1979 to 1997, the volume of other chemicals used
decreased by 29.3%.
Overall, the volume of pesticides used decreased by
13.3% from 1979 to 1997.
£ UWI
i u»,
£
1 *"
* «»
|
£ 4(X)
Q
| ;<«>
S
i}
U.S. Annual Volume of Pesticide Usage by
Type of Active Ingredient, 1979-1997
1
.« w
;
r i
i } iimHCKK-*
ftlSCCtlCKk'S
noihtTl.wv
Other! 'hems
McibitiJc.
1*)?T' !9M [9S~ 19K9 I'M! 1'W f*> 1W7
Year
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs
Biological and Economic Analysis Division estimates
Scale: Data is comparable on a national level.
Notes: "Other Conv" refers to conventional pesticides other than fungicides,
insecticides and herbicides (e.g., nematieidcs, rodenlicides and funiigants).
"Other Chems" refers to chemicals registered as pesticides but arc produced
mostly for other purposes (e.g., sulfur and petroleum).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: For these estimates, the EPA consults
public and proprietary data sources. Public data include a 1990 EPA survey of
pesticide usage by homeowners and a 1993 KPA survey of commercial
applicators. The 1'PA reports that the proprietary sources consulted are well-
known organi/ations that are utilized by pesticide registrants and other private
sector firms. Files on pesticide usage are maintained at the Pesticide Data Center
in the Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) of the EPA Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP).
References
Aspclin, Arnold I-. and Arthur II. Grube. "Pesticides Industry Sales and
Usage: 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates." EPA/OPP/BEAIX
November 1999.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
168
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Kmissions
Level 3
FOOD SAFETY
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I Outputs I
TYFEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Annual Pesticide Use on Select Field Crops by Type of Active
Ingredient
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There are many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.
For these reasons, it is important to monitor the agricultural
usage of pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is charged with monitoring the usage of pesticides on
field crops, fruits, vegetables and for livestock and general farm
uses. Every year, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) administers the Agricultural Resources
Management Survey (ARMS) to a sample of farmers.
Information on pesticide usage on field crops is obtained
through this annual survey.
This indicator measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide
type. Although this indicator does not explicitly consider the
toxicity of the pesticides used, one can cautiously infer relative
toxicity according to pesticide type. According to the USDA,
insecticides generally are more toxic than herbicides, which arc
both usually more toxic than fungicides. Again, this indicator
measures only usage and not toxicity or risk.
The chart shows that herbicides represent the largest
share of pesticide usage on field crops in the U.S. Its
share has increased from 77% in 1991 to 78% in 2000
following a decrease to 59% in 1999.
Until 1999, insecticide usage remained stable at
roughly 0.2 pounds of active ingredient per acre. In
1999, this figure jumped to 0.35 pounds per acre and
increased to .39 in 2000.
Overall, total pounds of active ingredient per acre have
increased from 2.14 in 1991 to 2.37 in 2000.
Annual Pesticide use on Select Field Crops, by
Type of Active Ingredient, 1991-2000
Fungicide
U InsecEKidi:
OOiherchemrak
169
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Held Crop Summaries
for I '» I -2000.
Notes: Select field crops include corn, upland cotton, fall potatoes, soybeans and
winter wheat tor 1991-1999. In 2000. fall potatoes were excluded with a
subsequent reduced number of acres being included in the sample,
The large apparent decrease in the use of other chemicals in 1998 is due to the
fact Mat only Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were surveyed for pesticide use on
potatoes. Desiccants, which are defined as other chemicals in this report, arc a
key chemical requisite in the production of potatoes. In other years, the
percentage of these chemicals applied in other states, such as Idaho, has been far
greater.
Scale: Data are collected from select states and aggregated to illustrate national
trends
Data Characteristics and Limitations: hvery year, the USDA NASS
administers the ARMS to a sample of farms that produce the crops of interest
that particular year. Although the list of the crops of interest varies from year to
year, this indicator tracks pesticide usage on the five field crops that have been
surveyed every year (corn, upland cotton, fall potatoes, soybeans and winter
wheat). This is to ensure comparability of the data over time. The operator of
the sampled farm is personally interviewed by NASS staff to obtain information
about chemical applications on the selected field. The survey and the sampling
scheme are designed so that the usage estimates are statistically representative of
chemical use on the targeted crops in the surveyed slates. The estimates are
reviewed for reliability and consistency.
Reference
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics
Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Chemical
Usage. Field Crop Summiin* (1991-2000). 27 November 2002.
Available online at: http:'www.usda.gov.nass
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
170
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/ |
Emissions
Level 3
STATE
Ambiem
Condition
Level 4
FOOD SAFETY
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
Body
Burden/
I "ptakc
Level 5
Outcomes
ICFFKCTS
Human.'
Kcoloj^ical
1 Icalrh Risk
Level 6
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
| Outputs I
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables by Type of Active
Ingredient
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input. Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed lo
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There arc many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.
For these reasons, it is important to monitor the agricultural
usage of pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is charged with monitoring the usage of pesticides on
field crops, fruits, vegetables and for livestock and general farm
uses. Every year, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) administers the Agricultural Resources
Management Survey (ARMS) to a sample of fanners.
Information on pesticide usage on vegetables is obtained
through this annual survey.
This indicator measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide
type. Although this indicator docs not explicitly consider the
toxicity of the pesticides used, one can cautiously infer relative
toxicity according to pesticide type. According to the USDA,
insecticides generally are more toxic than herbicides, which are
both usually more toxic than fungicides. Again, this indicator
measures only usage, and not toxicity or risk.
The chart illustrates that insecticides and fungicides
have represented the bulk of the pesticides applied to
vegetables since 1992. The percentage of pesticides
applied that has been insecticides has ranged from 41 %
in 1992 to 46% in 2000, while the percentage that has
been fungicides has ranged from 33% in 1992 to 22%
in 2000.
Overall, total pounds of active ingredient per acre have
increased from 9.9 in 1992 to 18.6 in 2000.
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables, by
Type of Active Ingredient, 1992-2000
I !-ungKide
D Eiuvtxticide
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Vegetable Summaries
tor l')')2-200().
Notes: Select vegetables include asparagus, fresh lima beans, fresh snap beans.
processing snap beans, broccoli, fresh cabbage, processing cabbage, cauliflower.
celery, fresh sweet corn, processing sweet corn, fresh cucumbers, processing
cucumbers, eggplant, head lettuce, other lettuce, watermelons, processing green
peas, bell peppers, fresh spinach, processing spinach, strawberries. :resh
tomatoes, and processing tomatoes.
Scale: Data arc collected from select states and aggregated to show nal anal
trends.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Every year, the USDA NASS
administers the ARMS to a sample of farms that produce the vegetables of
interest that particular year. Although the list of the vegetables of interest \aries
from year to year, this indicator tracks pesticide usage on the twenty-four
vegetables that have been surveyed csory year. This is to ensure comparability
of the data over time. NASS staff, to obtain information about chemical
applications on the selected vegetable, personally interview the operator cf the
sampled farm. The survey and the sampling scheme are designed so tha the
usage estimates are statistically representative of chemical use on the targeted
crops in the surveyed states. The estimates are reviewed for reliability and
consistency.
171
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Reference
National Agricultural Statistics Sen ice (NASS). Agricultural Statistics
Board, L'.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Clu
Uxage. Vegetable Summary (1992-1998). 20 November
Available online at: http://wwui.usda.govi'nass
mical
2002.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
172
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
STATE
Ambient
Conditions
Level 4
FOOD SAFETY
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
Moclv
Burden/
I :ptake
Level 5
Outcomes
EFFKCTS
Actions by
Regulated
Communm
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
I
TYPE A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Annual Pesticide Use on Select Fruits by Type of Active Ingredient
Over the past 50 years, the use of pesticides has increased faster
than that of any other agricultural production input Chemical
control of weeds, insects, fungi and rodents has contributed to
the maintenance of high agricultural productivity levels in this
country. These economic gains are not without their trade-offs.
There are many public health and environmental concerns
regarding the widespread use of pesticides in U.S. agriculture.
There is the issue of human health risks due to pesticide residues
on food and in drinking water, and farm worker exposures.
There are also many cases where pesticides have adversely
affected wildlife and sensitive ecosystems.
For these reasons, it is important to monitor the agricultural
usage of pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is charged with moniloring the usage of pesticides on
field crops, fruits, vegetables and for livestock and general farm
uses. Every year, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) administers the Agricultural Resources
Management Survey (ARMS) to a sample of farmers.
Information on pesticide usage on fruits is obtained through this
annual survey.
This indicator measures agricultural pesticide usage by pesticide
type. Although this indicator does not explicitly consider the
toxicity of the pesticides used, one can cautiously infer relative
toxicity according to pesticide type. According to the USDA,
insecticides generally are more toxic than herbicides, which are
both usually more toxic than fungicides. Again, this indicator
measures only usage and not toxicity or risk.
The chart shows that insecticides represent the largest
share of pesticide usage on fruits in the U.S. Its share
has increased from 64% in 1991 to 76% in 1999.
During this same period, the share of pesticide usage
that has been fungicides has decreased from 2K% in
1991 to 17% in 1999.
Overall, total pounds of active ingredient per acre have
remained relatively stabile, decreasing only slightly
from 51.32 pounds per acre in 1991 to 51.10 pounds
per acre in 1999.
Annual Pesticide Use on Select Vegetables,
Type of Active Ingredient, 1992-2000
by
< Jlher chjmieals
Notes: Select fruits include apples, avocados, blackberries, blueberries, sweet
cherries, tart cherries, grapefruit, lemons, oranges, peaches, pears, raspberies,
tangclos. tangerines, and temples.
Source: USD A NASS. Kruil Summaries for I'W1-I9»W.
Scale: Data arc collected from select states and aggregated lo illustrate national
trends.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: livery year, the L'SDA NASS
administers the ARMS to a sample of farms that produce the fruits of interest that
particular year. Although the list of the fruits of interest varies from year lo year,
this indicator tracks pesticide usage on the fifteen fruits that have been surveyed
every year (apples, avocados, blackberries, blueberries, sweet cherries, tart
cherries, grapefruit, lemons, oranges, peaches, pears, raspberries, tangelos,
tangerines, and temples). This is to ensure comparability of the data over time.
"1 he operator of the sampled farm is personally interviewed by NASS staff to
obtain information about chemical applications on the selected field. The survey
and the sampling scheme are designed so thai (he usage estimates are statistically
representative of chemical use on the targeted fruits in the surveyed states. The
estimates are reviewed for reliability and consistency.
173
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Reference
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Chemical U,c, Fruit
Summary (1991-1999). 20 November 2002. Available online at:
http: /www.usda.uov nass
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
174
-------
PRKSSURE
FOOD SAFETY
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Tom A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Percent of Harvested Acres where Farmer Reported Use of
Genetically Modified Variety
One of the most important emergent trends in agriculture is the
use of biotechnology. Biotechnology refers to a set of
techniques that make use of cellular and molecular processes to
solve problems. With respect to agriculture, biotechnology has
been used to manage pests, enhance the nutritional content of
food products, and immunize crop varieties against pest and
pesticide damage.
Although biotechnology produces many immediate benefits -
such as allowing reduced use of conventional pesticides there
is no consensus about its long-term impacts on human health
and the environment. While scientists are assessing these long-
term impacts, it is important to monitor the diffusion of
biotechnology in agricultural practices. This indicator tracks the
use of crop varieties that are genetically enhanced to resist
herbicides and insects. Crop varieties that are resistant to
damage by herbicides or pests allow farmers to decrease their
applications of conventional herbicides and insecticides.
The charts display the trends in use of genetically enhanced crop
varieties reported by farmers to an annual survey by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Because biotechnology has
only recently garnered widespread attention, farmers have been
surveyed about their biotechnology practices only since 1998.
The category for stacked-gcne varieties was added to the survey
in 2000.
From 1998 to 1999, the percentage of harvested acres
in which insect-resistant varieties of corn for grain and
upland cotton were used increased by four percent
(26% to 30% for corn for grain. 23% to 27% for upland
cotton).
A dramatic increase occurred in the use of herbicide-
resistant varieties of soybeans from 1998 to 1999 (from
42% to 57% of harvested acres).
In 2001, the percentage of harvested acres in which
herbicide-resistant varieties of soybeans were used
increased to 68%.
There was a 5% increase in the use of herbicide-
resistant varieties of upland cotton from 1998 to 1999.
The percentage of harvested acres in which insect-
resistant varieties of corn for grain and upland cotton
were used decreased 8% and 10% respectively
between 1998 and 2001.
The use of stacked-gcne varieties in upland cotton
increased from 20% in 2000 to 24% in 2001.
Percent of Harvested Acres for which
Herbicide Resistant Varieties were Used,
1998-2001
Bfom for Grain
C (.pbnti Co ton
Soybeans
175
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Percent of Harvested Acres for which Insect
Resistant Varieties were Used, 1998-2001
I l.'pbnd Cotton
Com ior
-------
FOOD
IMPORT/EXPORTINTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY
PRESSURE ^ STAT1-: ^
V <:: - ;-,.1^T-.7.<^^^X»- -r^l^.-C.^7^9^^^ >
Discharges/ ^W Ambient ^^
Emissions I (Conditions
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
EI-'FECTS
Body H I luman/
Burden/ f Ideological
I ipuke I I U-alth Risk
Level 6
Level?
t SOCIETAL RKSPONSE ^^
v:~*v^-*:-''Vt:i^M«RioBa^B^^^^^^
Rcp,latory I Ac"ons h>"
Responses § *«!!»'««' f^
I ( xmimunity I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs _ I
TYPE A
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Percent of Imported Foods Sampled with Detectable and Violative
Pesticides Residues
Most of the food produced for human consumption is grown
using pesticides. Chemical control of weeds, insects, fungi and
rodents has allowed the pesticide-using world to intensify
agriculture and increase its productivity. However, these
economic benefits are not without their risks to human and
environmental health. Because pesticides are so widely used in
agriculture, they may remain as residues on fruits, vegetables.
grains and other foods. These pesticide residues arc a public
health concern because, in certain doses, pesticides are known to
cause acute and chronic health effects.
In the United States and other developed countries (Japan and
the nations of Western Europe), the majority of pesticide
applications represent herbicides, which tend to have lower
acute toxicity than insecticides. However, in most developing
countries, the situation is reversed. Tn these countries.
insecticides are primarily used, often older compounds in the
organophosphate and carbamate families known for their acute
and chronic toxicities. Because of the potential risks to human
health that the agricultural practices in other countries impose, it
is important to monitor pesticide residues on food imports. The
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with
enforcing the EPA's pesticide residue tolerances in imported
foods. The chart displays the foods sampled by the FDA from
1993 to 1999 with detectable and violativc pesticide residues.
Total pesticide residue detections exhibit a reasonably
stable trend from 1993 to 1999, ranging from 31% to
35.6% of sampled food imports.
Violative pesticide residue detections also exhibit a
reasonably stable trend from 1993 to 1999; however the
1997-1999 period shows a slight increase from 1.6% to
3.1% of sampled food imports.
Pesticide Residue Detection on Foods Sampled,
bv Number ot Residues Detected, 1994-1999
Single KfsKl
I Muhtpt Kcs
1SW4 1'W?
Notes: In Ihese reports, a violalive residue is defined as a residue that exceeds a
tolerance or a residue at a level of regulator)' significance for which no tolerance
lias been established in the sampled food.
Source: FDA Pesticide Monitoring Program, 199.")-1999.
Scale: Data are comparable on a national scale.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The I DA collects imported food
samples at the point of entry into U.S. commerce. The FDA samples raw
agricultural commodities and processed food products. The FDA relies on
niultiresidue methods (MRMs) that can simultaneously detect a number of
different pesticide residues. In 1999. the I-'DA collected 6,012 food samples
representing shipments from 92 countries.
Data are reported annually.
Referenccs:
Pesticide Monitoring Program, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Residue Maniloring (Calendar years 1993-1999). 2() November
2002. Available online at: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pesrpts.html.
The World Resources Institute, UNEP. UNDP. World Bank (1998). World
Resources. I99K-199V. New York: Oxford University Press.
177
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
ENVIROMENTAL
ISSUE 5:
PRODUCT SAFETY
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Number of Human Poison Exposure Cases, By Medical Outcome, due to Chemical Misuse
Number of Human Poison Exposure Cases, By Medical Outcome, due to Pesticide Misuse
Annual Pesticides Usage by Residential Sectors and by Pesticide Type
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 5:
PRODUCT SAFETY
American consumers expect that the products they purchase are sale to use. Indeed, there
are a host of federal regulations and agencies that help to ensure the safety of consumer
products. The EPA. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration are the key federal agencies responsible for identifying and controlling chemical
hazards posed by consumer products. These agencies conduct this work under the author-
ity of federal laws such as: the Toxic Substances and Control Act; the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Federal Hazardous Substances Act;and the Consumer
Product Safety Act.
Despite this web of federal consumer protection, there are still many chemical hazards
posed by consumer products. These hu/urds occur when safety relies on compliance with voluntary product standards,
proper usage of the product, and patchy surveillance of potential product hazards (Dawson 1998). Also contributing to
this problem is the fact that consumer protection is more often reactive than proactive; meaning that recalls and bans
often happen only after a consumer product has caused injuries or illnesses in the population. Moreover, toxic hazards
from chemical constituents are often more difficult to identify and prove than mechanical ha/.ards (from product mal-
functions). The issue of products is divided into three sub-issues that reflect the key dimensions of the problem of safety:
(1) product toxicity; (2) chemical and pesticide product misuse; and (3) non-agricultural pesticide use.
Issue Dimensions
Product Toxicity
Product toxicity is a broad concept that refers to the amount of toxicity found in a wide range of products to which people
may be exposed through contact or use. At the household level it may relate to the myriad of chemicals used for all
manner of purposes, (e.g., cleaning solvents, household pesticides, silver polish, and drain cleaner). Products for home
repair and maintenance, for gardening, or for hot tub or swimming maintenance are also areas for concern. The toxicity
of children's toys is an area of special concern. Hand-to-mouth activity, and frequent and prolonged mouthing and
teething on toys and other products put children at risk of toxic chemical exposure. Studies have shown that mouthing,
sucking and teething on a product can cause chemicals to leach from the product into the child's system (CPSC 1998).
Since children's bodies are still developing, and also metaboli/e and excrete toxins at slower rates than do adults, they
are highly sensitive to toxic effects.
Although the shipping of toxics in industrial product is not directly related to the level of such harmful chemicals in
consumer products, industry data can be used to develop an estimate of trends in the level of toxics in products in general.
Chemical and Pesticide Product Misuse
Registered chemical and pesticide products are deemed safe only in the context of proper product usage. In the pro-
cesses of product manufacturing and product regulation, some risk is transferred to the consumer. It is expected that
consumers use a product only for its intended application and in accordance with all warnings and directions accompa-
nying the product. Studies have shown, however, that consumers are often risk-taking and ignore product safety infor-
mation (Diamond 1988). Indeed, the fact that safely is not the primary consideration of product choice for many con-
sumers (price being the primary consideration) creates a disincentive for firms to make their product as safe as possible
(Curio 1999). There are economic costs attached to making products safe, which must be reflected in the final price of
the product. Thus, the overall safety of a particular chemical or pesticide product is the outcome of tradeoffs between the
costs and consumer demand for safety and the ability of the firm to produce a reduced-risk product. Therefore, because
181
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
the produclion of zero-risk products is economically and sometimes technologically unfeasible, the misuse of chemical
and pesticide products poses risks to human health and the environment. The indicators in this section track the human
health effects (poisonings) of chemical and pesticide product misuse. The American Association of Poison Control
Centers, the source of the indicator data, distinguishes between unintentional misuse (unplanned or unforeseen by the
user) and intentional misuse (planned by the user in order to obtain better or faster results with the product) in its
categorization of chemical and pesticide poisonings. These categories reflect the consumer behaviors that increase the
risk of registered chemical and pesticide products.
Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use
Non-agricultural pesticide use represents only about one-third of total pesticide use in the United States (Aspelin and
Grube 1999). Non-agricultural pesticide use (also called urban pesticide use) is not as well documented or as studied as
is agricultural pesticide use. Urban pesticide use includes individual consumer and professional applicators in home and
commercial settings for lawn and landscape care, and turf management of golf courses, parks, cemeteries, roadways,
railroads, and pipelines (Hodge 1993). While professional applicators typically undergo training and licensing, home
users are unregulated and untrained in correct pesticide use.
Patterns of pesticide use differ in non-agricultural sectors from agricultural sectors. In agriculture, pesticides are often
applied in one large application, typically within a 2 to 3 week period around planting. Home and garden pesticide use
typically comprises 3 to 5 small applications throughout the spring and summer months (Gold and Groffman 1993).
Although the volume and pattern of urban pesticide use may seem inconsequential, it still poses serious risks to the
environment. In its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found
that urban pesticide use has created water quality problems in and around urban areas. The USGS observed a widespread
water presence of insecticides commonly used in homes, gardens, and commercial areas. These insecticide detections
occurred at higher frequencies, and typically at higher concentrations, in urban streams than in agricultural streams
(USGS 1999). Insecticides, which are generally more toxic than herbicides, were commonly found in urban streams at
concentrations that exceeded EPA safe guidelines for aquatic life.
It is important to note that, unlike agricultural sectors, data are not collected on the volume of specific active ingredients
applied in non-agricultural sectors. This prevents the estimation of the average toxicity or health risk posed by non-
agricultural pesticide use. The indicator in this section tracks only the use of pesticides in non-agricultural sectors.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992. Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Lead
Toxicity (Revised September 1992). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Aspelin. Arnold L. and Arthur H. Grube. 1999. Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1996 and 1997 Market
Estimates. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Curio, Eleonora. 1999. "Marketing Strategy, Product Safety, and Ethical Factors in Consumer Choice." Journal of
Business Ethics 21: 37-48.
Dawson, Carol G. 1998. "Voluntary standards threatened." Consumers' Research Maga/ine 81,4: 34-35.
Diamond, William D. 1988. "The Effects of Probability and Consequence Levels on the Focus of Consumer
Judgments in Risky Situations." Journal of Consumer Research 15, 280-283.
DiGangi, Joseph. 1998. "Voluntary Measures Fail to Ensure Safety of Vinyl Products: Lead, Cadmium and DEHP
Still Present Despite Toy Maker's Promises." On-line report at Greenpeace USA Media Center, http://
www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/ldcrpttext.htm
Chemical and Pesticidex Results Measures It
182
-------
Gold, AJ. and P.M. GroH'man. 1993. "Leaching of agrichcmicals from suburban areas." In Pesticides in Urban
Environments. Eds. K.D. Racke and A.R. Leslie. Washington. D.C.: American Chemical Society.
Hess, Glenn. 1999. "Activists push FDA to remove bisphenol-A from baby bottles." Chemical Market Reporter
255, 20: 9.
Hodge, J.E. 1993. "Pesticide trends in the professional and consumer market." In Pesticides in Urban Environments.
Eds. K.D. Racke and A.R. Leslie. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 1998. The Risk of Chronic Toxicity Associated with Exposure
to Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) in Children's Products, http://www.cpsc.gov/phth/dinp.htinl
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters - Nutrients and Pesticides. U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1225.
183
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRODUCT SAFETY
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE PRODUCT MISUSE
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
SOCIETAL
liTAI. RESPONS1-: ^
iX*m&efaa*iSftfm*m^^^
<>rv '^ct'nns'lv H
,ses § Rcguliitai W~
I (Jomniunny
I^evel 1 Level 2
Outputs |
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Human Poison Exposure Cases, by Medical Outcome,
due to Chemical Misuse
The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC)
administers the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS),
the only comprehensive poisoning surveillance database in the
United States. TESS is a cumulative database, with data dating
back to its inception in 1983. of poison exposure cases. These
cases arc poison exposures reported by telephone to one of the
AAPCC's regional poison control centers.
For each reported exposure, the gender, age and location of each
caller is recorded. The locational site of exposure, substance(s)
involved, reason for and route of exposure arc also recorded for
each case. To complete the profile of the poison exposure case,
the medical outcome and intervention (type of decontamination
and/or therapy) are also documented.
This indicator draws upon a subset of annual TESS data, the
parameters of which arc: substance involved (chemical), reason
for exposure (misuse), and medical outcome of exposure
(ranging from no effect to death). This indicator will allow for
the tracking of reported incidents of chemical product misuse
and the health effects associated with such product misuse. A
trend of rising chemical misuse and/or increasingly serious
outcomes associated with such misuse could serve as a signal to
initate a regulatory response, such as mandating the
reformulation or repackaging of chemical products, to reduce
the risk of toxic effects or prevent product misuse.
The number of non-fatal human exposure cases due to chemical
misuse in the TESS database is not publicly available. In the
AAPCC Annual Report, the annual number of fatal poison
exposures due to chemical misuse is provided. Since 1983, the
annual number of fatalities is very small no more than 5
reported deaths each year are associated with chemical misuse.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The cumulative AAPCC database
contains 27 million human poison exposure cases for the reporting years 19X3-
]9'W. Each year, the AAPCC publishes an annual report of select releases of
1 liSS data in the September issue of the American Journal of Emergency
Medicine. Since 1'>X3, TKSS lias grown dramatically, with increases in the
number of participating poison centers and population served by those centers
(refer to chart below).
Annual changes in the number of human poison exposure cases may reflect
changes in participation and reporting of cases may not be accurate due to self-
reporting. Chemicals may not be the cause of all poisonings because the sources
of exposures were not verified.
To control for the increase in annual reporting, the reported indicator is the
number of non-fatal poisoning cases due to chemical exposure per million people
in the sen iced population.
The following TfiSS categories of products are reflected in the number of
chemical exposures in the indicator data series: chemicals and heavy metals.
A noteworthy limitation of the I'l-SS data is that diagnoses are not established.
except in cases of known ingest ion. The health effects associated with the
poison exposure are reported and not proven through thorough investigation
(Wagner).
References
Annual Report of the AAPCC TKSS published in the American Journal o/
Emergency Medicine, 1984-1998.
Telephone conversation with Dr Sheldon Wagner, Clinical Toxicoiogist,
Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon
State University
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
184
-------
PRKSSURK
Discharges/
Kmissiinis
Level 3
STATE
Ambient
Conditions
Level 4
PRODUCT SAFETY
CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE PRODUCT MISUSE
Body
Burden/
Uptake
LevelS
Outcomes
EFFECTS ^
rv <4.>aW*l-l^^^^
r'-'M-l
M,«un |
Health
Level 6
el 7
SOC1KTAL RKSPONSK
HHKBBMP
Actions by
f lianmuniry
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs 5
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Human Poison Exposure Cases, by Medical
Outcome, due to Pesticide Misuse
The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC)
administers the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS),
the only comprehensive poisoning surveillance database in the
United States. TESS is a cumulative database, with data dating
back to its inception in 1983, of poison exposure cases. These
cases are poison exposures reported by telephone to one of the
AAPCC's regional poison control centers.
For each reported exposure, the gender, age and location of each
caller is recorded. The locational site of exposure, substance(s)
involved, reason for and route of exposure are also recorded for
each case. To complete the profile of the poison exposure case,
the medical outcome and intervention (type of decontamination
and/or therapy) are also documented.
This indicator draws upon a subset of annual TESS data, the
parameters of which are: substance involved (pesticides), reason
for exposure (misuse), and medical outcome of exposure
(ranging from no effect to death). This indicator will allow for
the tracking of reported incidents of pesticide product misuse
and the health effects associated with such product misuse. A
trend of rising pesticide misuse and/or increasingly serious
outcomes associated with such misuse could serve as a signal to
initate a regulatory response, such as mandating the
reformulation or repackaging of pesticide products, to reduce the
risk of toxic effects or prevent product misuse.
The number of non-fatal human exposure cases due to pesticide
misuse in the TESS database is not publicly available. In the
AAPCC Annual Report, the annual number of fatal poison
exposures due to pesticide misuse is provided. Since 1983, the
annual number of fatalities is very small - no more than 3
reported deaths each year are associated with pesticide misuse.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The cumulative AAPCC database
contains 27 million human poison exposure cases for the reporting years 1983-
1999. Each year, the AAPCC publishes an annual report of select releases of
'[ 1-SS data in the September issue of the American Journal of Emergency
Medicine. Since 1983. TESS has grown dramatically, with increases in the
number of participating poison centers and population served by those centers
(refer m chart below).
Annual changes in the number of human poison exposure cases may reflect
changes in participation and reporting of cases may not be accurate due to self-
reporting. Chemicals may not be the cause of all poisonings because the sources
of exposures were not verified.
To control for the increase in annual reporting, the reported indicator is the
number of non-fatal poisoning cases due to chemical exposure per million people
in the serviced population.
The following TESS categories of products are reflected in the number of
chemical exposures in the indicator data series: chemicals and heavy metals.
A noteworthy limitation of the TESS data is that diagnoses are not established,
except in cases of known ingcstion. The health effects associated with the
poison exposure arc reported and not proven through thorough investigation
(Wagner).
References
Annual Report of the AAPCC TESS published in the American Journal of
Knvrgeney Medicine. 1984-2000.
Telephone conversation with Dr. Sheldon Wagner, Clinical Toxicologist,
Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. Oregon
Stale University
185
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
PRODUCT SAFETY
NON-AGRICUTURAL PESTICIDE USE
I iuman/
Kcological
Health Risk
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Annual Pesticides Usage by Residential Sectors and by Pesticide
Type
Non-agricultural pesticides use represents a significant portion
of the demand for and use of pesticides nationwide. Pesticides
are used for aesthetic purposes (e.g., lawn and garden
maintenance), home pest control, and public health benefits.
There are potential health and environmental risks associated
with non-agricultural pesticides use because such applications
occur where people live and work. Risk also arises from the
potential applicator error due to infrequent and/or uninformed
use in non-agricultural settings.
Because of these potential risks, it is important to track non-
agricultural pesticide usage. This indicator measures the annual
volume of non-agricultural pesticide use by different sectors and
by pesticide type. Although this indicator does not explicitly
consider the toxicity of the pesticides used, one can cautiously
infer relative toxicity according to pesticide type. According to
the US DA, insecticides generally are more toxic than herbicides,
which are both usually more toxic than fungicides. Again, this
indicator measures only usage and not toxicity or risk.
* In the non-agricultural sectors, total pesticides usage
has declined from 398 million pounds to 287 million
pounds from 1979 to 1997.
This decline in non-agricultural pesticide usage is
primarily due to the decrease in use by the industry,
commercial and government sectors (from 243 million
pounds in 1979 to 151 million pounds in 1997).
In the non-agricultural sectors, herbicide usage
represents the largest share of pesticide applications. In
1997, herbicide usage represented 34% of total
pesticide use.
In the non-agricultural sectors, insecticide usage
exhibits a trend of decline, from 67 to 47 million
pounds of active ingredient from 1979 to 1997.
Annual Pesticides Usage by Non-Agricultural
S
B * '
St :
1 3?tl'-
If
- MI-
^ 250 ''
j ""
= 150 '
13 nm 1
|
5
K
V7>) 1XS1 ISO l«
ectors, 1979-1997
5 I")S7 l%9 1^1 ]W
Home and Ciardsn
' Wusm.c.omm,.r,.B,
Go%'emment
1
1
IWS 1997
Year
Non-agricultural Pesticides Usage by Pesticide
Type, 1979-1997
3 Olher Com
J i-'urigicidcs
InscctlCKjcs
Other Chans
Habit «!>.-.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
186
-------
Source: 1990 KPA survey ot pesticide usage by homeowners and a 1993 KPA
survey of commercial applicators
Notes: "Other Conv" refers to conventional pesticides other than fungicides.
insecticides and herbicides (e.g., nematicides, rodemicidcs and fumiganls).
"Other Chems" refers to chemicals registered as pesticides but are produced
mostly for other purposes (e.g.. sulfur and petroleum).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: For these estimates, the EPA consults
public and proprietary data sources. Public data include a 1990 EPA survey of
pesticide usage by homeowners and a 1993 EPA survey of commercial
applicators. The KPA reports that the proprietary sources consulted are well-
known organisations that are ulili/cd by pesticide registrants and other private
sector firms. Files on pesticide usage are maintained at the Pesticide Data Center
in the Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BKAD) of the EPA Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP).
References
Aspelin, Arnold L. and Arthur H. Grube. "Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage:
1996 and 1997 Market Estimates." EPA OPP BHAD. November
1999.
187
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
ENVIROMENTAL
ISSUE 6:
TRANSBOUNDARY
MOVEMENT OF CHEMICALS
AND PESTICIDES
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Volume of Exports of Hazardous Waste from the U.S. by Treatment Method and
Receiving Country
Mercury Deposition in the Florida Everglades
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals and Pesticides into the Great Lakes
Hazardous Pesticides Exports from the U.S.
U.S. Imports and Exports of Persistent Organic Pollutants
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 6:
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDES
A complexity of environmental protection is that environmental effects do not respect
international borders. Actions taken in other countries can create adverse environmental
conditions for the U.S. and vice versa. Environmental effects arc globalized through human
activity, such as international trade, and natural processes such as atmospheric circulation.
Such globali/ution processes serve to magnify the impact of local pollution and create risk
for non-local ecosystems and populations. At the core of this issue is the question of
equity: who pays for the globalization of environmental effects, who benefits from it, and
who suffers from it? Analysis of the sub-issues suggests that the costs are borne by many
while the benefits of the globalization of environmental effects are reaped by a few. The
indicator system developed for this issue will help to identify the distribution of these costs
and benefits, and represents a necessary step in ensuring transboundary environmental justice. The major issue of (he
globali/ution of environmental effects is divided into three sub-issues that reflect the key dimensions of the problem: (I)
the transboundary management of toxics, (2) the environmental transport of chemicals and pesticides, and (3) the
international trade of toxic chemicals and pesticides.
Issue Dimensions
Transboundary Management of Toxics
Approximately 350 million metric tons of toxic waste are generated annually, with over 90% of this generated in
industriali/.ed countries (World Resources Institute, 1998). Almost all industrialized countries have adopted hazardous
waste management policies in order to minimize the ecological and human health risks posed by the generation and
management of this waste. These stringent policies have resulted in rising costs for the treatment and disposal of toxic-
waste. From the early 197()'s to the late 198()'s. the price for land tilling hazardous waste in the U.S. increased by 16(M)f/f
(Hilz, 1992). Currently in the U.S., the cost to incinerate one metric ton of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) waste
ranges from $200 to $2,300 (EPA ,1997). Also contributing to these rising costs is the limited number of disposal and
treatment facilities. Many existing facilities are nearing capacity and few new facilities are built due to strong public
objections against their presence.
An unintended consequence of .stringent policies, rising disposal costs, and public objections to local disposal has been
the shift toward transboundary management of toxic wastes. Approximately 2 million metric tons of toxic waste are
traded among developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (World
Resources Institute, 1998). According to official reports, fewer than 1.000 metric tons of toxic waste are exported to
developing countries. However, many more exports of toxic waste to developing countries are conducted illegally and
go unreported. Although there are no reliable data on the illegal waste trade, the EPA has estimated illegal shipments
outnumber legal ones by 8 to 1 (World Resources Institute. 1998).
Hazardous wastes are illegally exported to developing countries because of the lax to non-existent environmental regulations
there and the significantly lower costs of treatment and disposal. For these developing countries, most of which are
burdened by tremendous debt, the importing of these toxic wastes represents an important source of income and a rare
opportunity to obtain hard currency (e.g.. U.S. dollars). The major problem of this practice is that most of these countries
do not have the technical expertise or facilities for safe management and disposal. In these countries, unanticipated
situations of environmental damage (e.g. soil contamination, air and ground water pollution), adverse human health
effects (e.g.. acute reactions and birth defects) and high economic costs (e.g. site cleanup and compensation for poisoned
victims) have been documented.
191
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
The concern over the toxic waste trade and its documented dangers from cases around the world led to the drafting of the
Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal in 1989.
Over 100 countries have ratified the Convention, which requires that toxic waste exporters notify and receive permission
from importers prior to shipment; that all waste shipments are accurately labeled; and that countries prohibit waste
shipments to nations that have banned them. The notable country among the non-ratifiers is the United States, which is
the largest generator of toxic waste. The indicators in this section track the movement of toxic wastes across U.S.
borders.
Environmental Transport of Chemicals and Pesticides
Pollutants in one ecosystem can often be traced to source pollution hundreds or thousands of miles away. Persistent
organic pollutants (POPs) have been observed to undergo extensive movement and redistribution on a global scale.
Scientists have studied the movement of POPs and have discovered a pattern of global distillation whereby POPs migrate
from warm regions of release to colder regions of condensation. Called the "grasshopper effect," multiple cycles of
evaporation, air transport, and condensation allow POPs to travel large distances in relatively short periods of time
(Newman, 1998). In cold climates, low evaporation rates trap transported POPs locally where they often enter the food
chain. These POPs are known to bioaccutnulate in the food chain, as significant concentrations have been detected in
humans. In some Inuit women in northern Canada, blood levels of PCBs have been found to exceed Health Canada
standards. Additionally, breast milk samples from Inuit women showed certain POP levels to be up to nine times higher
than that of women who live in southern Canada (Environment Canada. 2002).
Pesticides are commonly transported 1'rom the site of application into non-local water sources and sediments; trace
concentrations of pesticides have even been detected in the Arctic regions (Bidleman & Falconer, 1999). In a sampling
of tree bark sites around the world, the banned pesticide Hexachloroben/ene was found to be globally distributed over
large distances from the points of emission (Bidleman & Falconer, 1999). The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program monitors the ambient concentrations of the most commonly used pesticides in
urban, agricultural, and mixed land use areas. The NAWQA Program shows that pesticides pose contamination risks in
water bodies both near and far from the site of pesticide application. The indicators in this section track the transport of
toxic chemicals and pesticides to important U.S. ecosystems (the Florida Everglades and the Great Lakes).
International Trade of Toxic Chemicals and Pesticides
International trade is one process by which chemicals and pesticides pose a transboundary environmental risk. Much of
the international pesticides trade involves developing countries, in which pesticides are used for a number of agricultural
and public health purposes. Because of the limited financial resources of many developing countries, many of the
pesticides exported to them are less expensive, highly toxic, obsolete, or even banned. The Foundation for Advancements
in Science and Education (FASE) found that large quantities of ha/ardous (banned, severely restricted, never registered.
or restricted use) pesticides are annually shipped from the U.S. to developing countries. Many of these shipments are
illegal, but bypass detection due to inadequate federal controls (FASE, 199X).
The environmental and human health risks of these ha/ardous pesticides are further magnified by the poor state of
pesticides management, weak to nonexistent regulatory capacity, and working conditions found in the developing world.
A 1996 survey by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organi/.ation (FAO) revealed that safe storage of pesticides
is a serious problem in 48% of developing countries. Also, in 75% of developing countries, pesticide distributors are not
adequately trained to inform buyers about the safe and efficient use of pesticides.
The inappropriate packaging or labeling of chemical and pesticide products, lack of facilities for proper storage, and lack
of user education, increase the potential for product misuse, environmental contamination, and adverse human health
effects. At heightened risk in these countries are children, whose metabolic and immune systems offer less protection
against toxic substances than those of an adult. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), more than
90% of rural working children in developing countries are involved in agriculture. According to the ILO, children mix
or apply pesticides and fertilizers and also pick crops still wet with pesticide applications (1996).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
192
-------
References
Bidleman, T. F. & Falconer. R. L. (1999). Using Enantiomers To Trace Pesticide
Emissions. Environmental Science & Technology 33, 9.
Environment Canada. Taking Action on Persistent Organic Pollutants-POPs. 4 December 2002.
Available online at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pops/brochurc_.e.htni
Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education. (1998). Exporting Risk: Pesticide
Exports from U.S. Ports. 1995-1996. FASE Research Report. Spring.
Hil/. C. (1992). The International Toxic Waste Trade. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
International Labour Organization. (1996). Child labour: targeting the intolerable. Geneva: ILO.
Cited in the FASE Research Report.
Newman. M. C. (1998). Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology. Ann Arbor. MI: Sleeping Bear
Press.
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organi/ation (FAO). (1996). An Analysis of the responses to the second
international questionnaire on the international code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides.
Rome: FAO. Cited in the FASE Research Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. (1997). Management of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
U.S. Geological Survey. (1999). The Quality of Our Nation's Waters-Nutrients and Pesticides.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225.
World Resources Institute. (1998). World Resources 1998-99. New York: Oxford University
Press.
193
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF CHEMICALS
AND PESTICIDES
TRANSBOUNDARY MANAGEMENT OF Toxics
TYFEA
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
I Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Volume of Exports of Hazardous Waste from the U.S., by
Treatment Method and Receiving Country
Exports of hazardous waste from the U.S. are subject to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
RCRA provides for the tracking and management of ha/ardous
waste from generator to transporter then to its final phase in
treatment, storage, or disposal. Under RCRA requirements,
hazardous waste exporters must: notify EPA of an intended
export before the scheduled shipment; provide EPA with written
consent of the receiving country to accept the hazardous waste;
comply with manifest requiremenls; and, file an annual report
with EPA summarizing all hazardous waste exports for the
previous calendar year.
The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) reviews export notifications, manifests annual reports,
and tracks hazardous wase exports in a database called the
Hazardous Waste Export Systems (HWES). In addition, OECA
issues Acknowledgements of Consent for hazardous waste
exports.
Hazardous wastes are exported from the U.S. for the following
treatments in recipient countries: reclamation and recycling,
bulking and repackaging, landfllling, and incineration. This
indicator allows for the tracking of hazardous waste exports for
each intended treatment method by recipient country. Exports to
lesser developed countries (LDCs) have caused problems in the
past because these countries often do not have the necessary
facitilitics or expertise for ha/ardous waste management. This
indicator will allow for the trend tracking of exports to LDCs; a
trend of increased exporting could serve as a signal to inspect
facilities and ensure proper management in the importing LDCs.
Total hazardous waste exports increased by 59% from
1993 to 1995 (from 146.708 tons to 226,393 tons).
Canada and Mexico are the largest importers of U.S.
hazardous waste, accepting over 99% of total exports
each year.
Most (approximately 60% annually) exported
hazardous wastes are reclaimed/recycled in the
recipient countries.
Total Hazardous Waste Exports by Treatment
Method, 1993-1995
I-40.CKIO
)2fLOl HI
)
-------
Hazardous Waste Exports for
Bulking/Repackaging, 1994-1995
Hazardous Waste Exports for Incineration,
1993-1995
Notes: Japan imported less lhan 14 tons of hazardous waste from (he U.S.
each year. Exports to Western Europe total to less than 1,000 tons per
year.Source: Charts derived from HWES export volume diiici. ax compiled by
Paul Sor.it. EPA Office of Solid Waste
Scale: Data are comparable on a national level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: IIWES traeks hazardous waste data for
each calendar year, but it is not available publicly. Waste export data for 1996
and 1997 are still being analy/cd and compiled by the EPA Office of Solid
Wasle. A noteworthy limitation to this data is that it does nol include export data
for spent lead-acid battery wastes. Exports of spent lead-acid battery wastes are
exempt from annual reporting requirements. However, spent lead-acid batteries
arc known to be exported from the U.S. and are the principal hazardous waste
legally exported to lesser developed countries.
References:
I:,PA OliC'A website for International Enforcement and Compliance
Activities. 20 November 2002. Available online at:
h Up: //www. cpa. gov /compliance/
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) (_"RA 40 Part 262
Subparts 1; and H. 20 Novmebcr 2002. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/cpaoswer/osw/laws-rcg.htmSRCRA
Hazardous Waste Exports for Landfilling,
1993-1995
ESS
195
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF CHEMICALS
AND PESTICIDES
ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT OF CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
EFFECTS
SOCIKTAL RESPONSE
Discharges/
hrmssions
Level 3
Level 4
Lrvel 5
Outcomes
Human/
Ideological
I icalrh Risk
Level 6
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Mercury Deposition in the Florida Everglades
The environmental transport of mercury has caused a significant
problem in the Florida Everglades. The Everglades arc
inhabited by fish with mercury concentrations that consistently
exceed the guideline of 1.5 parts per million established by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The first
detection of these unsafe mercury levels in Everglades fish was
made in 1988. Shortly thereafter, biologists discovered toxic
concentrations and effects of mercury throughout the Everglades
food chain - in raccoons, otters, alligators, egrets and
endangered Florida panthers. Because mercury is a known
neurotoxicant in humans, the consumption of fish and other
game from the Florida Everglades has been severely restricted.
Scientists from the EPA, Florida Department of Environmental
Proteclion, U.S. Geological Survey and Florida State University
have studied, and continue to study, the mercury problem in the
Everglades. These scientists found that over 95% of the annual
mercury deposition in the Everglades occurs through rainfall.
Moreover, much of the mercury in this rainfall deposition
originates from overseas sources. Scientists estimate that
between 30% and 70% of mercury deposition in the Everglades
comes from the environmental transport of mercury emissions
from other countries.
The deposition of mercury in the Everglades is monitored
through the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's
Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). The MDN is a national
database of weekly concentrations of mercury in precipitation
and the seasonal change of total mercury in wet deposition. Of
the 38 sites monitored in the MDN, mercury deposition has been
highest in the Everglades.
The charts depict the monthly trends in mercury concentration in
rainfall and mercury deposition in the Everglades from January
1996to April 2002.
Mercury concentration and deposition are seasonal:
they are highest during the summer months and lowest
during the winter months.
The seasonal cycles of concentration and deposition
show a relatively stable trend over the 5 year period.
Average Monthly Concentration of Mercury in
Rainfall, Everglades National Park, 1996-2002
* / .?a ^ ,,# .#',.# .* ^
fS >?* ^P ijS s>* ^ ^ S>* J?~ a.
* .»'
^ ;
J! ^
Month-Year
Monthly Deposition of Mercury in Everglades
National Park, 1996-2002
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
196
-------
Source: Mercury Deposition Network
Scale: Data is comparable on a regional level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Weekly precipitation samples arc
collected at each MDN site and sent lo Frontier Geoscienees, Inc.. in Seattle.
Washington for total and methylmercury concentration. The MDN data is
subject to quality assurance quality control programs in the Held and in the
laboratory. Weekly concentration and deposition data are available for all MDN
sites, which are located throughout the country.
The MDN is anticipated lo operate for at least five years and is managed by the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program Coordination Office.
References
Alkeson, Thomas D. "Mercury in Florida's Environment." Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. 13 November 2002. Available online
at: http://www.dcp.slate.fi. us/1 abs/hg/ II me re u ry. htm
(ianisch. C'arola. IU98. "Where is Mercury Deposition Coming f:rom'.'"
Knvinmmenlal Scic'iu i1 & Ti'rhmilogy 32. 7.
Mercury Deposition Network website. 12 February 200.1. Available online at:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc .edu/mdn/
Stephenson, Frank. "Florida's Mercury Menace." North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. 13 November 2001. Available
online at: http:»'www.p2pays.org/ret/01.-'0033 7.htm
U.S. Geological Survey. "Mercury Studies in the Florida Everglades and in the
HNR Areas." 13 November 2001. Available online at:
hup: "www.em-irobase.usgs.gov/abslracis/Ahslfl 166.html
197
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Level 3
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF CHEMICALS
AND PESTICIDES
ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT OF CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
KFFECTS
TYPEA
TYPEB
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level?
J
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs !
TYPEC
Indicator: Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals and Pesticides into the
Great Lakes
In the mid-1980s, it was observed that contaminant levels in fish
and other biota in the Great Lakes continued to persist at high
levels, despite the implementation of pollution control programs
in the United States and Canada. Surveillance of lake water and
river tributaries could not account for all sources of the
continuing contamination. In light of this finding, American and
Canadian scientists began to investigate the possible role of the
atmosphere in maintaining high concentrations of pollutants in
the Lakes.
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) was
created under the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement for this purpose. Its objectives include: the
identification of airborne toxic substances, the identification of
their sources, and the estimation of their deposition to the Great
Lakes. The IADN measures the loadings of atmospheric
contaminants into the Lakes through wet deposition, dry
deposition, and gas exchange. The IADN maintains a system of
master stations and satellite stations around the Great Lakes and
their watershed areas. At these stations, measurements arc
collected for: banned and restricted pesticides, current-use
pesticides, combustion products, trace metals and industrial
chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs).
IADN data have shown that substances that have been banned in
the U.S. and Canada for years continue to be deposited into the
Great Lakes. These findings have demonstrated the significance
of long-range atmospheric transport of toxic substances into the
Great Lakes Basin. These substances not only affect the water
quality, but also adversely affect fish and other wildlife in the
Great Lakes ecosystem. This indicator tracks the atmospheric
deposition of the pesticides dieldrin and DDT and also of PCBs
and arsenic into the Great Lakes.
The charts show the trends in deposition for these substances
from 1992 to 1996.
* With some annual variation, the atmospheric deposition
of dieldrin, DDT and PCBs have slightly declined from
1992 to 1996.
Atmospheric Deposition of Dieldrin into the
Great Lakes, 1992-1996
!»
3 m
:o
m
-*- Lake Superior
- Lake Miehigan
I.ake Huron
Lake I
Lake t Jtilario
l'N4
Vc«r
Atmospheric Deposition of DDT into the Great
Lakes, 1992-1996
- I.ftke Superior
£
3 411
I.ake Huron
Lake ITU"
-I-ake Ontario
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
198
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of PCBs into the
Great Lakes, 1992-1996
-*-Liko Supcno:
Like MK hipaii
I-akc Huron
1 Jilt I rn:
-* l-ikvl>iit;ino
I'CM
Year
Atmospheric Loadings of Lead into the Great
Lakes, 1992-1996
[ ;lke Su|HTHir
lakeMk-hiran
[ .ike I lun>r.
Atmospheric Loadings of Arsenic into the
Great Lakes, 1992-1996
14.1)11(1 ,
12.50(1
11.0110
^ 9.5(10
~i s.ooo
tt
I 6.S1KI i
2.0110
5(1(1
3 ake Mipervr
I ale Mirhij-in
lakt lluri.n
IW4
Vtar
Notes: Deposition reflects the sum of wet and dry deposition into the Lakes.
Deposition is presented in terms of fluxes (mass/unit area/unit time, that is,
nanogram/square meter/day) in order to account for differences between lakes
due to their areas.
Notes: Loadings reflect the sum of wet and dry deposition into the lakes. A
missing value means that a loading could not he calculated, not that no loading
occurred. This measure does not take into account the si/.e differences among
the (ireat Lakes.
Source: Hnvironmcnl C'anada and the KPA. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Substances Hi the (ireat Lukes: MAY Ri-xullx to 1996.
Scale: Data are comparable on a regional level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The IADN monitoring system
comprises five master stations (one at each Circat Lake) and fourteen satellite
stations. Several instruments are grouped at each site to collect air and rain
samples. In 1ADN, three deposition processes are considered: %vct deposition by
precipitation, dry particle deposition by sedimentation, and net diffusive gas
exchange that accounts for the effects of air to water absorption and water to air
\okiiili7iiiion In addition to the toxic substances cited previously, the IADN is
considering adding following to its regular roster of chemicals: atra/inc and other
triu/inc herbicides, loxaphene, mercury, dioxins and lurans. and an expanded
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) list. The data reported in this indicator
reflect work from the first phase of IADN. which was conducted from 19l)0 to
19%. The second phase of IADN'. preliminary data from which arc not yet
available, is scheduled to run until 2004. No major changes to IADN are
anticipated.
References
Knvironmcnl Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000.
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Sahstantvs to the Great Lakes:
IAD\ Results to 1996. 13 November 2002. Available online at:
http:/7www.nisc.cc.gc.ca/iadn/resources/iadn_loadings to I996_web
e.pdf
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Fact Sheet. 13 November 2002.
Available online at:
http://wvvw.msc.ee. gc.ca/iadn/overview/ip2facts_c.pdf
199
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF CHEMICALS
AND PESTICIDES
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN Toxic CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
EFFECTS
\
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Hum-.m/
Kcologicul
I Icalth Risk
Level 6
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Hazardous Pesticide Exports from the U.S.
Many hazardous pesticides are exported to developing countries,
where they adversely affect human health and the environment.
Exports of these pesticides are problematic not only because of
their toxicity, but also because of the poor state ofpesticides
management in the developing world. In 1996, the United
Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) published
the results of its international survey regarding pesticide
distribution and management. The survey revealed that:
87% of developing countries have modest, little or no
resources available for pesticides management.
In 78% of developing countries, inadequate educational
and training materials are distributed to pesticide users.
Since 1992, the Foundation for Advancements in Science and
Education (FASE) has tracked the reported exports of hazardous
pesticides from the U.S. FASE defines ha/ardous pesticides to
include: restricted use and severely restricted use compounds,
banned or discontinued compounds, and compounds that have
never been registered with the EPA.
The FASE relies on a time-consuming process of sorting,
decoding and analyzing the shipping records of the U.S.
Customs Service. The chart depicts the export trends of
hazardous pesticides from the U.S., as reported to the U.S.
Customs Service.
* Reported annual exports of hazardous pesticides rose
steadily until the mid-1990s. Since 1997, the annual
exports of hazardous persticidcs habe begun to
decrease.
Reported anuual exports of never registered pesticides
more than doubled from 1992 to 20000 (4.% million
pounds to 11.2 million pounds).
By the year 2000, no instance of export of banned
products was reported.
As the chart shows, the export of hazardous pesticides from the
U.S. is a problem that has worsened since tracking began.
Reported Hazardous Pesticide Exports from
the U.S., 1992-2000
B HaniHxl. discontinued
Severely rcMrn'icd
J Never register.^
i-I Revtrn:Uh* tt-c
Year
Source: t-'ASE Research Reports
Scale: Data are comparable on a national level
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The FASE reports that much of ihc data
in Customs shipping records is cryptic or vague. For about 75% of all pesticides
exported, the specific chemical names were omitted from the shipping records.
Kor this reason, the FASF caution that these estimates are extremely conservative
and that ha/ardous pesticide exports are likely much higher Also, many of the
companies who export unidentified pesticides obtain permission from the
Treasury Department to withhold their names from shipping records.
In addition to general classes ofpesticides, the FASE reports pesticide exports by
active ingredient (chlordane, heplaehlor, DDT, etc.).
References
Foundation for Advancements in Science md Education. 1996. "Exporting
Risk: Pesticide Imports from U.S. Ports, 1992-1994." f-'ASE Rest-arch
Report. 13 November 2002. Available online at:
hup:;'Svww.fascnet.org-pesticide_report92-'M.pdf
Foundation lor Advancements in Science and Education. 1996."F,xporting Risk:
Pesticide Exports from U.S. Ports, I"95-1996." FASE Re.warch
Report. 13 November 2002. Available online at:
http://www.fasc net.org/pesticide_rcport95-96.pdf
Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education. 2002."Kxporting Risk:
Pesticide Exports from U.S. Ports. 1997-2000." FASE Research
Report 13 November 2002. Available online at:
hltp://www.fasenct.org/pcsticide_rcport97-00.pdf
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
200
-------
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF CHEMICALS
AND PESTICIDES
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN Toxic CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES
KFFECTS
Level 3
Level 4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level S
Outcomes
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 7
Level 1
Outputs
I
TYPEC
Indicator: U.S. Imports and Exports of Persistent Organic Pollutants
Many hazardous chemicals are exported from and imported into
the United States. Some of the traded chemicals are known as
persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Persistent organic
pollutants bioaccumulate in living organisms, do not readily
break down in the environment, and have exhibited long-term
toxic effects. For these reasons, POPs have been the target of
many national and international strategies. Currently, the United
States and many other countries arc negotiating a global
agreement on POPs under the mandate of the United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP). The mandate for these
negotiations is to reduce and/or eliminate emissions and
discharges of twelve specified POPs:
Eight cancelled pesticides (DDT. Aldrin, Dieldrin.
Endrin, Chlordanc, Heptachlor, Mirex, Toxaphenc)
Two industrial chemicals (PCBs and
hexachlorobenzcne)
* Two combustion by-products (dioxins and furans)
This indicator tracks the U.S. exports and imports of the eight
cancelled pesticides and two industrial chemicals targeted by the
international POPs negotiations. However, public data on the
exports and imports of chemical compounds is not disaggregated
enough to track specific POPs. Currently, the only specific
POPs whose imports and exports can be tracked are -DDT and
hexachlorobenzene. The chart shows the export and import
trends of these two compounds since 1994. It shows that the
United States still engages in international trade of these
chemicals, even though both are banned from use domestically
and in many other countries.
Although the export trend of these two chemicals is
irregular, overall it exhibits a decline: from
approximately 68 tons in 1994 to 19 tons in 1999.
The chart shows a dramatic increase in the imports of
DDT and hexachlorobenzene: from 24 tons in 1994 lo
over 193 tons in 1999.
U.S. Imports and Exports of
Hexachlorobenzene and DDT, 1994-1999
Q Fxpurt* (tons)
Import* Itwis)
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission
Scale: Data arc comparable on a national level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Ttc U.S. International Trade
Commission maintains an interactive tariff and trade database on their website
(http://www.datawch.usitc.gov). Using this database, export and import
information (quantities and monetary values) can be obtained for a specific
commodity. This requires use of the !()-digt identification code of the
commodity from the Harmoni/ed Tariff Schedule (UTS) of the United States.
Chapter 29 of the HTS lists the 10-digit codes for all organic chemicals. The
organic chemicals arc organized by broad category (except DDT and HCB).
The categories that include the POPs of interest also include chemicals that do
not rate as POPs; therefore, tracking the exports and imports of these categories
of organic chemicals is not appropriate for this indicator. The acquisition of
import and export data for specific POPs will require further research with the
appropriate staff in the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. International Trade
Commission. Data are reported annually and coripiled by the U.S. Department
of Commerce, the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
References
U.S. International Trade Commission Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb. 14
November 2002. Available online at: http://www.dalaweb.usitc.gov/
Section VI, Chapter 29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (2000). 14
November 2002. Available online
at:http://dataweb. usitc.gov/SCRIPTS/tari fl7toc.html
United Nations Environmental Programme POPs Home Page. 14 November
2002. Available online at: http:'Avww.chem.unep.ch/pops
201
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
-------
SPECIAL
POPULATIONS
-------
SPECIAL POPULATIONS ISSUES LIST
Children
Environmental Justice
Tribes
-------
SPECIAL
POPULATIONS
ISSUE 1:
CHILDREN
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Pathologies in Children Caused by Chemical or Pesticide Exposure
Incidence of Asthma in Children
Incidence and Mortality of Childhood Cancers
Incidence of Birth Defects
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Child Poisonings due to Pesticide Exposure
Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Child Poisonings due to Chemical Exposure
Children's Chronic Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases
Children's Acute Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases
Pesticide Residue Levels of Carcinogenic and Cholinesterase Inhibiting Neurotoxic
Pesticides on Foods Commonly Eaten by Children
Body Burden of Toxic Substances in Children
Blood Lead Levels in Children
Blood Mercury Levels in Children
-------
SPECIAL POPULATIONS ISSUE 1:
CHILDREN
There has been increasing concern over the past several years for the current and future health of
children, since children are more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of environmental pollution.
Exposed to a pervasive and increasingly large number of chemicals and pollutants, children are
exhibiting a wide variety of health effects at seemingly higher levels of occurrence than had
previously been noted. As a result, research is increasingly focusing on the associations between
environmental pollution and chemicals in the environment and the effect on children's health.
Asthma, respiratory infections, bronchitis, and pneumonia have all been linked to poor indoor and
outdoor air quality. The incidence of childhood cancer increased significantly and is now the fourth largest cause of
death for children under the age of 15. Toxic substances and some pesticides arc believed to be associated with this
increased incidence of cancer. Neurotoxic substances, such as lead and other heavy metals, solvents, pesticides, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are associated with a variety of developmental effects. Diminished intelligence,
behavioral problems, sexual dysfunction, and physical deformity are some of the health effects believed to result from
exposure to such chemicals. Children's environmental health is rapidly rising as an issue of important public policy. The
indicators in this section measure the acute health effects and chronic health risk from chemical and pesticide exposure
among children. The issues of acute health risks and chronic health effects will also be discussed in the context of
potential future indicators.
Issue Dimensions
Pathologies and Direct Health Impacts
Evidence suggests relationships between exposure to toxic chemicals and cardiovascular disorders, developmental
disorders, endocrine system dysfunction, gastrointestinal or liver dysfunction, weakening of the immune system, kidney
failure, musculoskeletal disease, neurological and behavioral dysfunction, interference with sexual function or the ability
to reproduce, respiratory system dysfunction, and skin or sense organ dysfunction.
The most powerful indicators of children's environmental health would be those that measured direct relationships
between chemical exposure and physical health effects. Unfortunately, the science and the data needed to support these
relationships are not currently available. Many health effects have multiple causes that prevent measurement of the
contribution of specific chemical exposures to specific health effects. For many chemicals, it is unknown what long-term
effects they will have on children's health. For those chemicals about which some effects are known, there still exists the
ignorance of some long-term risks. The National Children's Study is initiating new data collection processes that may
produce the evidence necessary to establish such relationships. If such relationships are established, then long-term
tracking through indicators can occur.
Health Risk
A potential intermediate measurement of the impact of chemicals on children's health is the estimation of ihe change in
risk associated with increases or decreases in chemical exposure. While the concept of risk is thoroughly integrated into
the culture of environmental protection agencies, and risk-based analysis is increasingly employed to make environmental
decisions, risk-based data sets suitable for indicator development have not existed until recently. The Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators project at the EPA permits the estimation of children's health risk resulting from modeled
exposure to Toxics Release Inventory chemicals. The indicators in this section use health risk as a proxy for health
outcomes.
207
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Chemical and Pesticide Safety
This issue focuses chemical and pesticide safety for children. One of the ways to measure children's chemical and
pesticide safety is to monitor the number of fatal and non-fatal child poisonings caused by exposure to chemicals and
pesticides. Tracking child poisonings due to pesticide and chemical exposure is important to monitor because children
are especially vulnerable to toxic substances. Their bodies arc in developmental stages and their metabolic and immune
systems may offer less protection against toxic effects than those of an adult. Children also have a greater risk of exposure
due to playing in areas where pesticides are applied and accidental ingestion of chemical and pesticide products can
occur.
Body Burden
A more direct assessment of children's exposure to environmental chemicals is to measure child body burden. This
assessment is possible through an advanced technology known as biomonitoring. Through the use of biomonitoring,
scientists are able to measure chemicals directly in blood and urine samples rather than to estimate population exposures
by measuring air, water, or soil samples. The National Children's Study and the National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, as developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, will provide annual, high-
quality data for a range of important chemical constituents found in human tissue. The first year data for the National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released in 2000 and provided a baseline for subsequent
studies. Currently data are available for 116 chemical constituents, including a number of pesticides. As data are
collected over the years, researchers will be better able to determine possible health effects and design appropriate public
health strategies.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals:
Report Summary. (29 January 2003). Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report
National Children' Study, (29 January, 2003). Available online at: http://nationalchildrensstudy.gov/
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
208
Eaffl
-------
CHILDREN
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
PRKSSURE
TYPEA
\
TYPEB
Level 3
I,cvel 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
J
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
J
TYPEC
Indicator: Pathologies in Children Caused by Chemical or Pesticide Exposure
With respect to exposure (o toxic chemicals and pesticides,
children represent a population of special concern. Their
pattern of growth and developments, their small si/e. (heir
unique pathways of exposure, and their diet make children
vulnerable to toxic exposure and its effects. Hand-to-mouth
activity, and frequent and prolonged mouthing and teething on
objects put children at heightened risk of toxic exposure.
Children also require greater amounts of food, in proportion to
their body weight, than do adults. While a diet rich in fruit and
vegetable products provides children with necessary nutrients, it
also increases the potential for exposure to pesticide residues.
Children can exhibit adverse physical effects at much lower
levels of toxic exposure than do adults. During the
developmental stage from the peri-natal period to two years of
age, children are especially sensitive to toxic exposures;
exposures during this phase in life can interfere with
development and may result in permanent physical or mental
damage.
The ideal measurement of the children's health impact of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The development of such indicators may soon be possible. In
conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
development of a National Children's Study (NCS) is presently
underway. The NCS will examine medical outcomes and body
burden data collected from a cohort of over 100,000 children.
The cohort will be followed from early gestation to the age of
21. Analysis of the data will permit the identification of causal
relationships between chemical exposure and specific medical
outcomes. The confirmation of such relationships, however, will
take many years clue to the lengthy scientific process of data
analysis, results validation or replication, and peer review.
Pilot studies will begin in fiscal year 2002-03 and the full study
will begin in fiscal year 2004-05. The study is projected to
conclude in fiscal year 2027-28.
The NCS, however, by concluding the monitoring when the
cohort reaches age 21 may be missing an opportunity to
considerably expand knowledge of chemical exposure and
health effects well into adulthood. By continuing the cohort
sludy indefinitely or until death, information could be collected
that could be used to conclusively establish the relationship
between chemical exposure and the character and timing of
medical outcomes across the entire life span.
Reference
National Children's Study, 29 January 200H. Available onllnr ai:
http://nationalchildrenssludy.gov7.
209
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHILDREN
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
TYPE A
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Incidence of Asthma in Children
Asthma is a chronic lung disease characterized by airway
inflammation and obstruction in which symptoms include
wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath (Mannino, Homa,
Pcrtowski, Ashizawa, Nixon, Johnson, Ball, Jack, & Kang,
1998). Asthma may be caused or triggered by "familial,
infectious, allcrgenic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and
environmental factors" (Mannino et al., 1998, p. 1). Although
there is not cure for asthma, it can be treated with anti-
inflammatory agents (inhaled steroids) and bronchodilators.
Another way to control asthma is to avoid environmental
triggers such as allergens, viruses, tobacco smoke, certain
chemicals, and other indoor and outdoor air pollutants (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002). With good
management, people with asthma may gain control over the
disease. An estimated 25% of children with asthma show no
symptoms when they become adults (American Lung
Association, 2002). However, damage to the lungs due to
asthma may become irreversible if the condition persists for a
long period of time and is insufficiently treated (Mannino et al.,
19981.
Asthma affects nearly 15 million Americans, more than 5
percent of the U.S. population. The scope of the health care
problem caused by asthma lies not only in the large number of
Americans with the disease, but also in the limitations that
asthma imposes on daily activities, such as school, work, sports,
and recreation. Asthma is the leading cause of school
absenteeism for children and a common cause of work
absenteeism for adults.
Asthma is also the most common chronic disease in childhood.
Children may be more at risk for getting asthma than adults
because they breathe almost twice the air inhaled by adults when
body weight is taken into account and therefore, they often have
more exposure to environmental contaminants. They are also
particularly at risk because their airways are still developing.
The following charts show trends in asthma incidence for
children less than 18 years of age in the U.S., as measured in the
National Health Interview Survey between 1982 and 1999. Due
to the use of a new design in the Survey in 1997, asthma
incidence rates prior to 1997 cannot be compared with later
rates.
From 1982 to 1996, the number of asthma conditions
for children under 18 has increased from 2,513,000 to
4,429,000.
Asthma incidence rates per 1,000 people were higher
and increased faster for children under 18 than for
people of all ages.
Asthma incidence rates increased from 34.8 to 55.2 for
people of all ages.
Asthma incidence rates increased from 40.1 to 62.0 for
children under 18.
Asthma Incidence in Children Aged Under 18,
1982-1996
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
210
-------
Asthma Incidence Rates in Children Aged
Under 18, 1982-1996
xo
± -o
!"
»
10
I)
.fAt*
Year
From 1997-1999, there was a small decline in asthma
incidence rates for children 5-17 and a small incline in
rates for children under 5. However, more data points
are needed to establish an overall trend.
Children under 18 consistently had higher asthma
incidence rates than those seen in the overall
population.
Children aged 5-17 consistently had higher asthma
incidence rates than any other age group.
Asthma Incidence in Children Aged Under 18,
1997-1999
<5 Ycan
D5-I7 Yvar
Asthma Incidence Rates in Children Aged
Under 18, 1997-1999
People
a s
ma Kal
y '
IN Vain »!' Aye
5- 1 * \ fiirs nl Aj-e
Note: An asthma condition was defined as answering yes lo "Have you EVf!R
been told by a doctor or other health professional thai you had asthma'.'" and
"During the pas! 12 MONTHS, have you had an episode of asthma or aslhma
attack?"
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey,
1982-1996, 1W-1999 as reported in the Trends in Asthma Morbidity and
Mortalily. February 2002 by the American Lung Association.
Scale: Asthma incidence data is at the national level and is not available at the
state or local level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: These estimates are based on a sample.
Therefore, they may differ from the figures that would he obtained from a census
of the population. Fach data point is an estimate of the true population value and
is subject to sampling variability. Due lo the use of a new design in the National
Health Interview Survey in 1997, asthma incidence rates prior to 1997 cannot be
compared with later rates.
References
American Lung Association. (2002). Asthma. 29 January 2003. Available
online at: http://www.lungusa.org/asthma/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Asthma. 29 January 2003.
Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollulion/aslhma/.
Mannino, D.M.. Homa. D.M.. Pcrtowski, C.A.. Ashi/awa, A.. Nixon, L.I,.,
Johnson. C.A.. Ball. L.B., Jack, E.. & Kang. D.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. (April 24, 1998). Surveillance for asthma -
United States, 1960-1995. Morbidity ami Mortality Weekly. 47(SS-I/.
I-2K. 29 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/nimwr/prcvicw/mmwrhtml/00052262.htni.
National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, I982-
I Wft. 1997-1999 as reported in the Trends in Asthma Morbidity and
Mortalily, February 2002 by the American Lung Association. 29
January 2003. Available online at:
htip://www I ungusa.org/data/asthma/ASTi IM Adt.pdf.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHILDREN
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
Discharges/
Emission
Level 3
Level 4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
Actions hy
Regulated
O>mrnumt\
Human/ Kcoloflcal/
Ktological f Human
Health Risk! Health
TYPE A
TYPES
Level 6
Level 7
J
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs J
TYPEC
Indicator: Incidence and Mortality of Childhood Cancers
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive,
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called rumors, which can be either benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to and
damage other parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (National
Cancer Institute, 2002a).
Compared to adults, cancer in children is rare and children
develop different types of cancers than adults {American Cancer
Society, 2001). The most common types of childhood cancers
include brain cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, neuroblastoma,
Wilms' tumor, and bone cancer. While the causes of childhood
cancers are unknown, it is expected that different factors cause
different types of cancer (U.S. EPA, 2000). Causes of childhood
cancers are difficult to study because of the low numbers of
children with each type of cancer. Risk factors for childhood
cancer include "family history, genetic defects, radiation, and
certain pharmaceutical agents used in chemotherapy" (U.S.
EPA, 2000). Environmental factors such as chemicals and
pesticides may increase the incidence of some childhood cancers
(U.S. EPA, 2000).
With respect to exposure to chemicals and pesticides, children
represent a population of special concern. Their pattern of
growth and development, their small size, their unique pathways
of exposure, and their diet make children vulnerable to toxic
exposure and its effects. Hand-to-mouth activity, and frequent
and prolonged mouthing and teething on objects put children at
heightened risk of toxic exposure. Children also require greater
amounts of food, in proportion to their body weight, than do
adults. A diet rich in fruit and vegetable products increases the
potential for children's exposure to pesticide residues.
Children exhibit adverse physical effects at much lower levels of
toxic exposure than do adults. During the developmental stage,
from the peri-natal period to two years of age, children are
especially sensitive to toxic exposures. Parental exposure to
carcinogenic chemicals and pesticides may contribute to
childhood cancer incidence by causing mutations in the parents'
germ cells or by passing the exposure to the fetus (U.S. EPA.
2000). Children's direct exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and
pesticides may also contribute to childhood cancer incidence
(U.S. EPA, 2000). According to Zahm and Ward (1998),
leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, brain cancer, and Ewing's
Sarcoma have been linked to pesticide exposure in case reports
on childhood cancer.
While only about 130 out of I million children are found to have
cancer each year, childhood cancer is the leading cause of death
from disease for children aged 1-19 (U.S. EPA, 2001).
However, mostly due to improvements in treatment, childhood
mortality due to cancer has decreased in recent years (U.S. EPA,
2000). The following charts show cancer incidence and
mortality rates for U.S. children.
From 1973 to 1999, cancer incidence rates per 100,000
children increased from 12.8 to 14.5 for children aged
0-14. Rates for children aged 0-19 increased from 13.8
to 15.5.
Cancer mortality rates for children aged 0-14 decreased
from 5.5 to 2.6. Rates for children aged 0-19 decreased
from 5.8 to 2.9.
Of the total incidence rates for children aged 0-19,
between 83% and 94% of those rates arc accounted for
in children aged 0-14.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
212
-------
Childhood Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Rates, 1973-1999
I I4 :
-»-- kiL-iiLviia-. AjlCfl
Year
Incidence Rates of Childhood Cancer by Type,
1973-1999
Hn.it.
Vm-Hodgkin's i ymphotiia
1.5
1
From 1973 to 1999 (with the exception of 1984) cancer
incidence rates per 100,000 children aged 0-19 were
highest in males.
Incidence Rates of Childhood Cancer by Sex,
1973-1999
V-* *
i :
3 *- * » sc 5c 5
» ^ ^ y £; =f ^
Y
-------
Incidence Rates of Childhood Cancer by Type,
1973-1996
3-.
* Mai Lgriari l McLtnoma
» [-wing's Saivotna
HvpaiubluMmnj
Year
Note: The year refers to the year of diagnosis for cancer incidence and the year
of death for cancer mortality.
Sources: National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology, and End
Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics, 2002,
http://seer.canccr.gov/canques/ (30 January 2003). tlodgkin's disease, soft tissue
sarcomas, germ cell tumors, ncuroblastoma. thyroid carcinoma, malignant
melanoma, ostcosarcoma, Swing's Sarcoma, rctinoblasloma, and hepatoblastoma
data are from SKER 1973-1996 as reported in "America's Children and the
Environment: A First View of Available Measures" (LS. EPA. 2000).
Scale: The presented data is at the national level. SliliR Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics data may also be viewed at the state level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Most types of cancer arc mure
frequently seen in older people and the U.S. population has aged over the past 30
years, which means the country's age distribution changes each year. Therefore.
cancer incidence and mortality rates are age-adjusted 10 the 2000 U.S. standard
million population by 5-ycar age groups to eliminate the confounding effect of
age when comparing rates from year to year. An age-adjusted rate is a weighted
averagj of the age-specific rates, where the weights are the proportions of
persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard million population.
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay time refers lo the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
to the National C'ancer Institute (NC'I). Reporting error occurs when a reported
ease must be deleted due lo incorrect reporting (Clegg. Heuer. Midthune. F-'ay &
Hankey, 2002).
References
American Cancer Society. (2001). Health information seekers. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http: www.cancer.org.
Clcgg, L.X.. Feucr. E.J., Midthune, D.N., Fay, M.P. & Hankey, B.F. (2002).
Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and
trends. Journal of the ,\alional Cancer Institute, 94t20l, 1537-1545.
National Cancer Institute. (2002a). Texiicular cancer home page. 30 January
2003. Available online at:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancer information/cancer lype/testicular/.
National C'ancer Institute. (20()2b). Simviilancc, Kpidemiolafy. ami End
Results incidence anil U.S. mortality statistics. 30 January 2003. Available
online at: http://seer.cancer.gov/canques/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). America's children and the
environment', a first view of available measures.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Childhood cancer. Office of
Children's Health Protection.
Zahm. S.I I. & Ward. M.H. (1998). Pesticides ami childhood cancer.
Environmental Health I'erspectivi-s, 106 (Sitpp. .?>, 1-24. 30 January' 2003.
Available online at: hup://www.mindfully.org/Peslieide/Pesticidcs-
Childhood-Cancer.htm.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
214
-------
CHILDREN
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
Discharges/
limissions
Level 3
Level 4
»<*!>
Hunlen/
I 'ptake
Level 5
Outcomes
TYPE A
TYPES
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Incidence of Birth Defects
A birth defect (sometimes called a congenital malformation) is a
structural, functional, or chemical abnormality that a child has at
birth (March of Dimes, 2002). A birth defect causes physical or
mental disability or death. Birth defects are the leading cause of
infant deaths in the U.S. Thousands of birth defects have been
discovered such as Down syndrome and fetal alcohol syndrome.
Approximately 150,000 children (about 1 in 28) arc born each
year with one or more birth defect (March of Dimes, 2002).
The causes of about 70% of the different types of birth defects
are unknown. However, genetic disorders and environmental
factors may cause birth defects. The three types of genetic
disorders are single gene, chromosomal, and multifactorial
(environmental and genetic factors). Single gene disorders are
known to cause neurofibromatosis, cystic fibrosis, and
hemophilia and chromosomal disorders are known to cause
Down syndrome (Florida Birth Defects Registry, 2002). As
maternal age increases, the risk of a child having certain
chromosomal defects also increases (March of Dimes, 2002).
Multifactorial disorders occur when genes interact with
environmental factors such as drugs, chemicals, pesticides,
prenatal infections, and maternal diseases. It is suspected that
many birth defects, such as heart defects, cleft lip and palate, and
clubfoot are caused by multifactorial disorders (March of Dimes,
2002).
It is difficult to determine which factor is actually causing the
birth defect. Drugs (including alcohol) and chemicals are also
associated with birth defects in the absence of genetic disorders.
Doses of drugs and chemicals that can be accepted by an adult
can cause serious damage to a developing fetus. Prenatal
exposure to thalidomide, a drug prescribed to pregnant women
as a tranquilizcr and to prevent nausea until the 1960s, is known
to cause brain, heart, and muskuloskeletal defects. Prenatal
exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic form of
estrogen that was used to prevent complications during
pregnancy from the 1940s to 1971, is known to cause female
reproductive tract and uterus deformities in female babies and
associated with underdeveloped or undescended testicles and
stunted peniscs in male babies.
Prenatal exposure to dioxin is associated with brain dysfunction
and immune system abnormalities and prenatal exposure to
PCBs. DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide, DDT), and
the herbicide 2,4-D are associated with genitourinary and
musculoskclctal defects. Environmental factors such as carbon
monoxide, ozone as air pollution, some pesticides, and drinking
water contaminated with trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, and
dichlorethylcne are associated with congenital heart defects and
diseases. Also, lead, methylmercury, some pesticides, some
hazardous wastes, and other environmental factors are associated
with structural defects.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is attempting to
meet the need for further birth defects research with the Centers
for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (CDDRP) which
includes the following seven individual state centers: Arkansas,
California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and
Texas. The following charts show birth defect incidence data
from New York, New Jersey, California, and Iowa. While other
states collect birth defect incidence data, these states are
represented in this indicator because they have the most
historical and accessible data. Efforts to standardize state center
collection methods are being made in order to estimate national
birth defect incidence data.
New Jersey birth defect incidence rates per 1,000 live
births increased from 23.88 in 1985-1990 to 34.53 in
1993-1994.
215
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
New Jersey Birth Defect Incidence Rates,
1985-1994
l
"
i :
0
Any Hinli IK-iccI |
I9VMW2
Year
Note: The discontinuity in the above time periods may imply a more rapid
increase in incidence rales than the actual increase.
From 1992 to 1999, New York birth defect incidence
rates per 1,000 live births decreased from 35.33 to
34.94.
fa
s
5
I
New York Birth Defect Incidence Rates,
1992-1999
£ -
s * :<>
f * '
= S 5
Any Hirth
DC to!
1992 !'»3 1«4
IW 1'NK 1
-------
3 ,
I,,
"£.
%
New Jersey Birth Defect Incidence Rates by
Type, 1985-1994
Hear! < fivjl \Vm^ Jinl
Digestive System
Year
New Jersey Birth Defect Incidence Rates by
Type, 1985-1994
Sokxtel I imh.'
Aneuplnulv
New Jersey Birth Defect Incidence Rates by
Type, 1985-1994
- < Ithtr Vi:v»cl
UallbWik-i . Hik-Jm-i. l.ivtr
IVIcluim Imeiii,.ns
Near
Note: The discontinuity in the above lime periods may imply a more rapid
increase or decrease in incidence rales than the actual increase or decrease.
In New Jersey, the ratio of male to female babies bora
with a defect is 1.27, while the ratio for the birth
population is 1.02. External / internal genital anomalies
are the primary source of the gender difference (New
Jersey Special Child Health Services Registry, 2002).
From 1992 to 1999, New York birth defect incidence
rates per 1,000 live births were highest for
cardiovascular, musculoskcletal, and genitourinary
defects.
New York Birth Defect Incidence Rates by
Organ System, 1992-1999
Cental Nervous System
'4* I'W 1'J94 1995 1996 19')" WX
Year
New York Birth Defect Incidence Rates by
Organ System, 1992-1999
Z '.'.4
e
11);
Clctls
liar
Eye
- Rcspinitory
- Enii-^umcnt
From 1992-1999, New York birth defect incidence rates
per 1,000 live births were highest for males.
New York Birth Defect Incidence Rates by Sex,
1992-1999
s
(3 211
Males
* Kcmalcs
Ymr
217
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures //
-------
From 1996 to 2000, California birth defect incidence
rates per 1,000 births were highest for serious heart
defects, chromosome abnormalities, and oral clefts.
California Common or Serious Birth Defect
Incidence Rates, 1996-2000
n.5
11
D n
*r I*
D
2
Year
In California, from 1990 to 1992, 26.4 males and 19.0
females per 1,000 live births had one or more
malformation.
Sources: Individual state Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention
(CBDRP) in New Jersey, New York, California, anil Iowa. See descriptions in
the data characteristics and limitations seetions below.
Scale: The presented data is at the state level.
California Birth Defects Monitoring Program Data Characteristics and
Limitations: Structural defects occur when a body part is missing or malformed.
Metabolic defects often occur when the chemistry of the body is unregulated due
to cells producing incorrect protein levels (Iowa Birth Defects Registry, 2002).
The California Birth Defects Monitoring F'rogram data includes children born
with any of more than two hundred types of structural binh defects that require
medical treatment or cause disability (2002). l-'rom 1983 to 1990 and from 1996
to 2000, the program included live births and fetal deaths. From 1990 to 1992 it
included live births only. In 1990, the registry began publishing data for fewer
conditions, primarily those most common and serious and from fewer counties.
those rrost representative of California in terms of demographics and binh defect
incidence rates. Data is available online at http:7www.cbdmp.org1 (14 January
2003).
Iowa Birth Defects Registry Data Characteristics and Limitations: Iowa has
an active surveillance system for collecting birth detects data in which trained
personnel review hospital, clinic, and other facility records. Data is available
online at http://www.publie-health.uiowa.edu/birthdefecls (14 January 2003).
New Jersey Special Child Health Services Registry Data Characteristics and
Limitations: All health care providers such as hospitals, physicians, and
dentists are required to report each live born child with one or more birth delect
diagnosed by age one to the registry. However. 10% are registered at age one or
older. Imprecise classification of some defects, improved medical technology.
and increasing ability to prenatally diagnose binh delects may affect overall and
specific birth defect incidence rates. Annual data was aggregated for
confidentiality reasons. Data is available online at
http://www.state.nj.us/health/fhs/t07.htm {14 January 2003).
New York State Department of Health Congenital Malformations Registry'
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Hospitals and physicians arc required
to report cases of birth defects diagnosed in children under two years of age to
the registry. The presented data comes from a response to a data request (2002).
The registry began collecting data in 1983. however, in 1992, it began matching
cases with birth certificates to eliminate duplicate cases reported under different
names. Therefore, data prior to 1992 is not comparable to more recent data and
is not included in the above charts. IMuctuulions in specific birth defect
incidence rates may be the result of the small numbers of cases of each birth
detect, diagnosing difficulty, and varying hospital and physician ability and
interest.
References
California Birth Delects Monitoring Program. (2002). 14 January 2003.
Available online at: http://www.cbdmp.org/.
Florida Birth Defects Registry. (2002). General information. 14 January 2003.
Available online at: http://fbdr.hsc.usf.edu/general/.
Iowa Birth Defects Registry. (2002). 2002 annual report. 14 January 2003.
Available online at: lntp:.'/www.public-health.uiowa.edu/birthdefeels.
March of Dimes. (2002). Health library: fact sheets. 14 January 2003.
Available online at: hltp://wwrw.modimes.org/.
New Jersey Special Child Health Services Registry. (2002). Birth years 1985-
1W4. 14 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.state.nj.us/health/m.s/t07.htm.
New York State Department of Health Congenital Malformations Registry.
(1999). Annual report. 14 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp:.'/www.health.state.ny.us.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
218
-------
CHILDREN
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
EFFECTS
Discharges
('missions
Level 3
Indicator: Number of Fatal and Non-Fatal Child Poisonings due to Pesticide
Exposure
The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC)
administers the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS),
the only comprehensive poisoning surveillance database in the
United States. TESS is a cumulative database, with data dating
back to its inception in 1983, of poison exposure cases. These
cases arc poison exposures reported by telephone to one of the
AAPCC's regional poison control centers.
For each reported exposure, the gender, age and location of each
caller is recorded. The locational site of exposure, substance(s)
involved, reason For and route of exposure are also recorded for
each case. To complete the profile of the poison exposure case,
the medical outcome and intervention (type of decontamination
and/or therapy) are also documented.
The chart displays non-fatal child poisonings due to pesticide
exposure per million population and total fatalities for the years
1983-2001.
The number of non-fatal child poisonings due to
pesticide exposure exhibits annual fluctuations, but has
increased overall since 1983.
The total number of child fatalities due to pesticide
exposure has remained below 8 deaths per year since
1983.
Poison Control Centers Participating and
Population Represented in TESS, 1983-2001
Poison Control
KEJ 300 Centers Reporting
"0
»
g so
"3 j«
E W
? -0
\
at."
tf
i*>
...*'
c°.
Population Svr\-cii
250
e
200 =
S
150 g
^
e
a.
SI
0
Ve.r
Child Poisonings Due to Pesticide Exposure
1983-2001
^B Non-r alal Ptiison
lf)(j <, I-Apysures
Futal Pdisyn
c.
£ ^w
j I .»
^ ~
ul HI)
'' vi
I)
A- .
u
^ .
.+
*t
vx
I
« -
,^
«l
3
*?.
4!
.c
a
* ^
s
1 r*
o
Year
*l't:r million people in the population serviced by participating poison control
centers
219
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: Annual Report of the AAPCC TJ-SS published in the American Journal
of Emergency Medicine. 19X4-2002.
Scale: Data arc available on a national level. States are not comparable due to
variations in Poison Control Center participation.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The cumulative AAPCC database
contains 27 million human poison exposure cases for the reporting years 1983-
2001 Each year, the AAPCC publishes an annual report of select releases of
TESS data in the September issue of the American Journal of Emergency
Medicine. Since 19X3. TKSS has grown dramatically, with increases in the
number of participating poison centers and population served by those centers
(refer to chart below).
Annual changes in the number of human poison exposure cases may reflect
changes in participation and reporting of cases may not be accurate due to self-
reporting. Chemicals may not be the cause of all poisonings because the sources
of exposures were not verified.
To control for the increase in annual reporting, the reported indicator is the
number of child poisoning cases due to pesticide exposure per million people in
the serviced population.
The following TESS categories of products arc reflected in the number of
pesticide exposures in the indicator data series: fungicides, herbicides,
insec:icides/pesticides, moth repellents, and rodcnlicides.
A no'cworthy limitation of the TKSS data is that diagnoses are not established,
except in cases of known ingcstion. The health effects associated with the
poison exposure are reported and not proven through thorough investigation
(Wagner).
References
Annual Report of the AAPCC' TKSS published in the American Journal of
Emergency Medicine. 19X4-2000.
Telephone conversation with Dr. Sheldon Wagner. Clinical Toxicologist.
Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. Oregon
Slate University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.,
Protecting ChilJn-n from Pcslicidex. 27 January 2003. Available
online at: http:'/www .epa.gov/pesticidcs/citixens/kidpesticide.htm
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
220
-------
Level 3
Level 4
CHILDREN
PATHOLOGIES AND DIRECT HEALTH IMPACTS
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
EFFliCTS
Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
J Outputs 3
.FVC 7. ?.>.
&
j*
-*
-------
Source: Annual Report of the AAPCC.' TESS published in the American Journal
of Emergency Medicine. 1984-2002
Scale: Data arc available on the national level. States are not comparable due to
variations in Poison Control Center participation.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The cumulative A A PCX' database
contains 27 million human poison exposure cases for the reporting years 1983-
2001. Each year, the AAPCC publishes an annual report of select releases of
TESS data in the September issue of the American Journal pf_ Emergency
Medicine. Since 1983, TESS has grown dramatically, with increases in the
number of participating poison centers and population screed by those centers
(refer to chart below).
Annual changes in (he number of human poison exposure cases may reflect
changes in participation and reporting of cases may not be accurate due to self-
reporting. Chemicals may not be the cause of all poisonings because the sources
of exposures were not verified.
To control for the increase in annual reporting, the reported indicator is the
number of child poisoning cases due to chemical exposure per million people in
the serviced population.
The following TESS categories of products are reflected in the number of
pesticide exposures in the indicator data series: chemicals and heavy metals.
A noteworthy limitation of the TESS data is that diagnoses are not established.
except in cases of known ingcstion. The health effects associated with the
poison exposure are reported and not proven through thorough investigation
(Wagner).
References
Annual Report of the AAPCC' TESS published in the American Journal of
Emergency Medicine. 1984-2002.
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. "Protecting Children from Pesticides." 27
January 2003. Found online at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cilizcns/kidpesticide.htm
Telephone conversation with Dr. Sheldon Wagner, Clinical Toxicologist.
Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. Oregon
Slate University
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
222
-------
CHILDREN
HEALTH RISK
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Children's Chronic Health Risk Index From Toxic Releases
With respect to exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides,
children represent a population of special concern. Their
pattern of growth and development, their small sixe, their
unique pathways of exposure, and their diet make children
vulnerable to toxic exposure and its effects. Hand-to-mouth
activity, and frequent and prolonged mouthing and teething on
objects put children at heightened risk of toxic exposure.
Children also require greater amounts of food, in proportion to
their body weight, than do adults. While a diet rich in fruit and
vegetable products provides children with necessary nutrients, it
also increases the potential for exposure to pesticide residues.
Children can exhibit adverse physical effects at much lower
levels of toxic exposure than do adults. During the
developmental stage, from the peri-natal period to two years of
age, children are especially sensitive to toxic exposures;
exposures during this phase in life can interfere with
development and may result in permanent physical or mental
damage.
The ideal measurement of children's health impacts of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations
and in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI
data are normally reported by the volume of releases of a
specific chemical or set of chemicals or by the volume of
managed waste. A limitation of this reporting system is that it
does not account for the relative toxicities of the individual
chemicals. These toxicities vary such that the many possible
combinations of less toxic chemicals and highly toxic chemicals
create a wide range of toxicity represented by a given volume of
release. To redress this limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics developed the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI). RSE1 expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating data that, for each chemical: reflects
the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates the size and
distribution of the receptor population. By incorporating these
data with the TRI, the chronic human health risk posed by a
toxic chemical release or waste stream can be estimated.
The analysis available through RSEI produces an unanchored or
unit-less measure of health risk. These measures can only be
interpreted relatively: to display trends and to make
comparisons of health risk over time. For this indicator, the
chronic health risk measures were adjusted to create a chronic
health risk index. It is conventional to present unit-less data
intended for temporal comparisons as an index (e.g., the
Consumer Price Index). For this indicator, the chronic health
risk estimate for the baseline year was adjusted to equal a value
of 100; subsequent estimates less than or greater than 100
indicate a decrease or increase in the chronic health risk posed
by toxic chemical releases and wastes, respectively. In a broad
sense, this indicator reflects whether human populations in the
U. S. are at a higher or lower risk of adverse health effects from
environmental toxics than they were in previous years.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
health risk of the entire population. It can be inferred, however.
as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is making in
reducing the chronic health risk posed by toxic chemicals.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
f||3
223
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
more complcCc and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of toxic releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the following
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of chemicals
that were reported every year from 1988 to 1999. The second
chart reflects data for an enhanced list of chemicals that have
been reported every year from 1995 to 1999.
The first chart shows that the chronic children's (ages
17 and under) health risk index for the core chemicals
list decreased from 100 to 49 points from 1988 to
1999.
The second chart shows that the chronic children's
health risk index for the enhanced chemicals list
decreased from 100 to 88 points from 1995 to 1999.
Releases to air, transfers to wastewater treatment
facilities (publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)),
and releases to water account for most of the chronic
children's health risk index (for both the core and
enhanced chemicals lists).
The chronic children's health risk posed by off-site
incineration composes a small portion of the index (for
both the core and enhanced chemicals lists).
Children's Chronic Human Health Index for
Releases and Managed Waste
(Core Chemicals List), 1988 2000
Tmilnirill
U.H-1
: si.*( k Aii
Note: The large risk in 1991 islikely duo to a release of 144.000 pounds of Nickel
to a wastewater treatment facility in Los Angeles, which resulted in drinking water
exposure to 3.9 million people.
Children's Chronic Human Health Index
(Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
!'(>IW Tamfn
Stai k Air
Fugiw Air
Sourer: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Custom computer queries of
national. January 2003.
Scale: Data from thp TRI database can be viewed on the national level, as well as
by I'PA regions, stales, anilities, cities, and zip codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about chemical
contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental conditions The
TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals released or transferred
anil does not reflect human or ecological health impacts. The Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEl) expand the ixrienlial use of the TRI by
introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The RSEI incorporates
toxicily scores for individual chemicals and chemical categories and also models the
fale and the potentially exposed population for releases (and some managed wastes).
The result is a screening level, risk related perspective for relative comparisons of
chemical releases and wastes. The flexibility of the model provides the opportunity
not only to examine trends, but also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic
planning, risk-related targeting, and community-based environmental protection.
Depending on the concentrations and length of ejqx>sijre, human health effects from
toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: off-site incineration, off site
landfill. POTW (publicly owned treatment works) transfers, direct water releases,
stack air releases and fugitive air releases. Release's to land, underground injection,
disposal, recycling, energy recovery and treatment operations are estimated to pose
very small risks (i.e.. ati index score less than 1), such that they would not be visible
in graphic representation. Therefore, they are not included in this indicator.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water and land from
facilities. A release is an on site discharge of a toxic chemical to the environment.
This includes emissions to the air. discharges to Ixxiies of water, and releases from
the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases to air are reported
either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks, evaporative loses from surface
impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems) or slack
emissions (releases from a confined air stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or
pipes). Releases to water include discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, weans, and
other water bodies, including contained sources such as industrial process outflow
pipes or open trenches. Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land
include disposal of toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land
treatment application farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is
the disposal of fluids by the sub surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste. Waste
management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery and metals
recovery: energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of toxic chemicals
in generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste treatment (biological
treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical separation), which results in
varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
224
-------
There arc sewral limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TR] capture's
only a portion of all loxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-time
employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not required to file
rejiorts Prior tu 1998, non-manufacturing sectors were not required to report. As
of 1998. electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical wholesalers.
petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and ha/ardnus waste1
treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic emissions from
automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted for In the TRI.
Additionally. TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but does not require
that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques arc used where
monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation methodologies
can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not fully comply with
the1 reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and coverage. Another
limitation is (hat there is an 18 month delay from data collection to current release
patterns. It is important lo recognize that release patterns can change significantly
from year to year, so current facility activities may differ from those reported in the
most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data cat) be beneficial in identifying potential
health risks, hut release estimates alone are not sufficient lo establish adverse
effects. Use of the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model, however, can
allow assessments of human and ecological health risks,
References
HlffS Toxics Release linenlon: /'ulilic Data Release. U.S. Knviroiimental
Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, August
20(K). Printed copies are also available and may be ordered online from:
U.S. El'A / NSCEP, Ann.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box 42-11!).
Cincinnati. Oil 45242-2419. h'ax: (513) 489 8695. Phone: (800) 490
9198. This document may also tie viewed and downloaded at
http://www.epii .gov/tri/triSS/.
"Kisk Screening Environmental Indicators," Fact Sheet. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Uctol>cr
1. 1999.
Tiaics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based 1-jivironmcnlnl Imliratois
Methodology. U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User's Manual far El'A's Kisk Screening Knvlronnicntal Indicator* Muili-l:
Version 1.02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevent ion and Toxics. November IS. 19!)!).
(These and otl«ff technical documents relating to Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators, as well as other information relating lo Risk
Screening Environmental Indicators may be viewed or downloaded al
hllp://www.e|>a.gov/opptmlr/env_ind/. To obtain epa -gov).
225
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHILDREN
HEALTH RISK
Actions by
Regulated
('ommunm
TYPE A
Level 3
Level 4
LevciS
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
J
Level 1
_Level2
Outputs
|
TYPEC
Indicator: Children's Acute Health Risk Index from Toxic Releases
With respect to exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides,
children represent a population of special concern. Their pattern
of growth and developments, their small size, their unique
pathways of exposure, and their diet make children vulnerable
to toxic exposure and its effects. Hand-io-mouth activity, and
frequent and prolonged mouthing and teething on objects put
children at heightened risk of toxic: exposure. Children also
require greater amounts of food, in proportion to their body
weight, than do adults. While a diet rich in fruit and vegetable
products provides children with necessary nutrients, it also
increases the potential for exposure to pesticide residues.
Children can exhibit adverse physical effects at much lower
levels of toxic exposure than do adults. During the
developmental stage from the peri-natal period to two years of
age, children are especially sensitive to toxic exposures;
exposures during this phase in life can interfere with
development and may result in permanent physical or mental
damage.
The ideal measurement of the children's health impact of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database of reported
toxic chemical releases into the environment. TRI data are
commonly used as a measure of toxic exposure. TRI data are
normally reported by volume of release of a specific chemical.
A limitation of this reporting system is that il does not account
for the relative toxicities of the individual chemicals. These
toxicities vary such that the many possible combinations of less
toxic chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide range
of health risk posed by a given volume of release. To redress
this limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators represent an
analytical expansion of TRI by incorporating data that, for each
chemical: reflects the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates
the size and distribution of the receptor population. By
incorporating these data with the TRI, the human health risk
posed by a toxic chemical release can be estimated.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unitless
measure of health risk. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of health
risk over time. For this indicator, the health risk measures
would be adjusted to create a health risk index. It is
conventional to present unitless data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the children's acute health risk estimate for the
baseline year would be adjusted to equal a value of 100;
subsequent estimates less than or greater than 100 would
indicate a decrease or increase in the children's health risk
posed by toxic chemical releases, respectively. In a broad sense,
this indicator would reflect whether children in the U.S. are at a
higher or lower risk of adverse health effects from
environmental toxics than they were in previous years.
Currently, the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators can
produce estimates for only chronic (long-term) health risk.
Next on the research schedule is the development of a
methodology for estimating acute (short-term) health risk.
Current expectations are that an acute health risk model will be
available within two years. When an acute health risk model is
functional, children's acute environmental health risk can be
estimated by running the model for the population under 18
years of age.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
arc exposed, this indicator would not be a complete measure of
the total acute health risk of the population under 18 years of
age. It may be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in reducing the acute health risk to
children posed by toxic chemicals.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
226
-------
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. This past year, the TRI was expanded
to include the reporting of releases from seven new economic
sectors - electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
By the time this prospective indicator is available, the expanded
reporting will provide a more complete and accurate reflection
of the scope and impact of chemical releases to the
environment.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial numlxT of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facililies. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about chemical
contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental conditions. The
TRI database, by itself, reports only tbe pounds of chemicals released or transferred
and cannot reflect human or ecological health impacts. The Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEl) represent an attempt to capitalize on the extensive
chemical inventory that constitutes TRI and to introduce flexibility and
manipuiabilily of the inventory by introducing new data elements- These IU'w data
elements allow estimations of loxicity, fate, and si/c. and distribution of the receptor
population for s toxic chemical release. The RSKI model integrates estimated
loxidly scores for individual chemicals and chemical categories witli a measure of
exposure potential based upon reported multi-media release and transfer data and
the site of the potentially exposed general population. The result is a screening
level, risk related perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, hut also
to rank and prioriti/e chemicals for strategic planning, risk related targeting, and
community-based environmental protection
The data elements thai will be used to construct this indicator are:
Air Releases
Fugitive Air Releases
Stack Air
Water Releases
Direct water
POTW Transfers
Land Releases
Onsite I .atidfill
LandTreatrnenl/Application/Farming
Surface Impoundment
Other I .and Disposal
Other Landfills
Underground injection treatment was not included among the releases to land due to
the very small health risk posed by injection.
Scale: Data are available at the national, stale, and facility levels Data are
comparable across stales.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air. water and land from
facililies. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the environment.
This includes emissions to Ilie air. discharges lo bcxlies of water, ami releases from
the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases lo air are reported
either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks, evaporative loses from surface
impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems) or stack
emissions (releases from a confined air stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or
pipes). Releases to water include discharges lo streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and
other water bodies, including contained sources such as industrial process outflow
pipes or open trenches. Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases lo land
include disposal of loxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land
treatment application farming, and surface impoundment. Underground Injun Ion is
Ihc disposal of fluids by the sub surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste. Waste
managernenl includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery and tnetals
recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combust inn of toxic chemicals
to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste treatment (biological
treatment, neutrali/ation, incineration and physical separation), which results in
varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all loxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-time
employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not required to file
reports. Prior to 1998. non-manufacturing sectors were not required to report. As
of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical wholesalers,
petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and harardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic emissions from
automobiles and other non industrial sources are not accounted for in the TRI.
Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but does not require
that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are used where
monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation methodologies
can cause release esiitnates to vary. Also, some facililies may not fully comply with
the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and coverage. Another
limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data collection to current release
patterns. It is important to recognize thai release patterns can change significantly
from year to year, so current facility activities may differ from those reported in the
most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data can be beneficial in identifying potential
health risks, but release estimates alone are not sufficient to establish adverse
effects. Use of the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model, however, can
allow assessments of human and ecological health risks.
References
2000 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, August
i!000. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered online from:
U.S. EPA / NSCF.P, Attn.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box 42419,
Cincinnati. Oil 45242-2419, Fax: (513) 489-8695, Phone: (800) 490
9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://wwvv.epa gov/tri/tridata/triOO/index.htm
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators," Fact Sheet. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October
1. 1999.
Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicators
Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User's Manual for l-f'A 's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model:
Version 1.02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. November 15, 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk -Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating lo Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators are available on at: http://www.epa.gov/opptinlr/rset/. 31 January 2003
To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information
Service. (202) 554-1404, Tsca-hotline@epa.gov).
227
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHILDREN
HEALTH RISK
TYPEA
Level 3 Level 4
Levels Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2 (
Outcomes |
Outputs 1
[ TYPEC ^
Indicator: Pesticide Residue Levels of Carcinogenic and Cholinesterase
Inhibiting Neurotoxic Pesticides on Foods Commonly Eaten by
Children
With respect to exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides, children
represent a population of special concern. Their pattern of growth
and developments, their small size, their unique pathways of
exposure, and their diet make children vulnerable to toxic exposure
and its effects. Hand-to-mouth activity, and frequent and
prolonged mouthing and teething on objects put children at
heightened risk of toxic exposure. Children also require greater
amounts of food, in proportion to their body weight, than do
adults. While a diet rich in fruit and vegetable products provides
children with necessary nutrients, it also increases the potential for
exposure to pesticide residues. Children can exhibit adverse
physical effects at much lower levels of toxic exposure than do
adults. During the developmental stage from the peri-natal period
to two years of age, children are especially sensitive to toxic
exposures; exposures during this phase in life can interfere with
development and may result in permanent physical or mental
damage.
Among these factors diet has a particular significance. The Office
of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) has
begun work on an indicator to pesticide tolerance levels for two
types chemicals that have high relevance for children -
carcinogens and cholinesterase inhibitors.
Carcinogens. For carcinogens Chemicals potentially capable of
causing cancers), OPPTS is using the Pesticide Data Program (POP)
to establish a baseline for an indicator measuring the incidence of
residue tolerances of 14 suspected pesticides being exceeded.
Those pesticides include:
Captan
Chlordane cis
Chlordane trans
Chlorothalonil
DDD (IDE)
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Diuron
Ethoprop
Hexachloroben/ene
Iprodione
Lindanc
Propargitc
OPPTS is using data from 19 foods to form the baseline. They
arc: apples, apple juice, bananas, broccoli, carrots, celery,
grapes, green beans (fresh, canned, and frozen), lettuce, milk,
oranges, peaches, potatoes, spinach, sweet corn (canned and
frozen), sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and wheat. The years of
1994, 1995, and 1996 are being used to set the baseline.
Preliminary analysis shows that out of 19,762 samples that
were analyzed for one or more of the potential carcinogens,
5,019, or 25.4%), had detectable residues of one or more
chemicals.
OPPTS also utilized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Total Diet Study. Using a similar and slightly expanded set of
potential carcinogenic pesticides residue data from 1995 relating to
261 food types. Out of 783 total samples analyzed, 252, or 32%,
had detectable levels.
Cholinesterase Inhibitors. Cholinesterase is an enzyme required
for the proper nervous system functioning of people, other
vertebrates, and insects. There are certain types of chemicals,
generally known, as cholinesterase inhibitors, that interfere with
action of cholinesterase. Among those chemicals are classes of
pesticides known as organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates
(CMs). Ingestion, inhalation, eye, or dermal contact can lead to a
variety of symptoms. In severe cases symptoms could include:
abdominal cramps, urinating, diarrhea, muscular tremors,
staggering gait, pinpoint pupils, hypotension, show heartbeat,
breathing difficulty, and death.
Chemical and Pesticides Resulis Measures II
228
-------
OPPTS is using the same two data sets to analyze cholinesterase
inhibiting chemical residues.
Using the USDA Pesticide Data Program data, analysis was
conducted of the same 19 foods as before using organophosphate
and carbamate pesticides. Of the 20,742 food samples analyzed:
6,943 samples (33.5%) had detectable levels of at least
one cholinesterase inhibiting chemical,
5,178 samples (25%) had a least one detectable
organophosphorus residue, and
2511 samples (12%) had at least one detectable
carbamate residue.
Using the FDA Total Diet Study:
45% of the items had at least one detectable
organophosphorus or carbamate residue,
39% of the items had a least one detectable
organophosphorus residue, and
10% of the items had a least one detectable carbamate
residue.
OPPTS is presently working to collect future data points for both
data sets for both carcinogens and cholinesterase inhibitors.
References:
Smith. William. "GI'RA: "Hstimating Baseline Levels of Potential Carcinogens
From Monitoring Data," Unpublished Working Paper, Office of
Prevention. Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Knvironmentul
Protection Agency, 2000.
Smith, William, "GPRA: "listimaling Baseline Levels of Potential Cholinesterase
Inhibiting Pesticides l-'rom Monitoring Data." Unpublished Working
Paper, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. U.S.
hnvironmcntal Protection Agency. 2000.
Wagner, Sheldon (lidilor). "Cholincsterasc-Inhibiting Pesticides Toxicity." Case
Studies in Environmental Afcdicim: t.'..V. Department of Health mill
Human Services. Public Health Sen-ice, Agency fur Toxic Suhxlancn
ami Disease Registry, September. 1993.
"Cholinesterase Inhibition." Fxtonet. Extension toxicology Network. 31 January
2003. Available online at:
http:.-.-www.acc.orsi.cdu/inlVvextt>xneb'iibs/chdincs.htm
Agricultural Marketing Sen ice. U.S. Department of Agriculture. PextieUle
Data Program: Annual Summary (Calendar years 1493-1498) .11
January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.anis.usda.gov/science/pdp/
Pesticide Monitoring Program, U.S. Hood and Drug Administration. Resiilite
Monitoring (Calendar years 1993-199"). 31 January 200X
Available online at: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pesrpts.html.
*SIM-1'»IK' MFVIKs
ESS
229
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
CHILDREN
BODY BURDEN
LevelS
.LeveU.
Level 5_
Outcomes
Level 6
Level?
I
Level 1_ _. Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Body Burden of Toxic Substances in Children
With respect to exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides,
children represent a population of special concern. Their
pattern of growth and developments, their small size, their
unique pathways of exposure, and their diet make children
vulnerable to toxic exposure and its effects. Hand-to-mouth
activity, and frequent and prolonged mouthing and teething on
objects put children at heightened risk of toxic exposure.
Children also require greater amounts of food, in proportion to
their body weight, than do adults. While a diet rich in fruit and
vegetable products provides children with necessary nutrients, it
also increases the potential for exposure to pesticide residues.
Children can exhibit adverse physical effects at much lower
levels of toxic exposure than do adults. During the
developmental stage from the peri-natal period to two years of
age, children are especially sensitive to toxic exposures;
exposures during this phase in life can interfere with
development and may result in permanent physical or mental
damage.
The ideal measurement of the children's health impact of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment
The Second National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals (2003) will provide an ongoing
assessment of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental
chemicals using biomonitoring. The Report provides exposure
information for people participating in the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC's), National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 1999-2000. This
data will establish the baseline for these chemical levels in
future years and future data will also be released in two-year
groups. The Report presents levels of 116 environmental
chemicals measured in the U.S. population.
The Report provides reference range values for physicians and
health researchers but separate research from the report is
required to determine which blood or urine levels are safe and
which levels cause disease. This information is available for
chemicals such as lead where studies have provided a good
understanding of the health risks resulting from different blood
levels.
The 116 chemicals included in the Report belong to one of the
following chemical groups:
metals
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
tobacco smoke
phthalates
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated
dibenzofurans. and coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls
polychlorinated biphenyls
phytoestrogens
organophosphate pesticides
organochlorine pesticides
carbamate pesticides
herbicides
pest repellents and disinfectants
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
230
-------
In the future, the Report will provide more detailed assessments
of exposure levels among different population groups defined by
age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, urban/rural residence and
other characteristics.
Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES),
1999-2000, as reported by the CDC's Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003), Available online al:
http://www.cdc,gov/exposurcrcport/(4 March 2003).
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals and NIIANES data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the state or EPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age. income,
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data tor the years 1999 to 2000
from the NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The NHANliS is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics,
The NHANES is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionalised population. A household interview and physical examination
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination,
blood and urine specimens arc collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine docs not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
Reference
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Second National Report on
Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 4 March 2003.
Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurercport/
231
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Discharges
Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
CHILDREN
BODY BURDEN
EFFECTS
Body
Burden/
Uptake-
Level 5
Outcomes
I lum an/
Ideological
Health His
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Blood Lead Levels in Children
Lead exposure can cause a variety of adverse effects to a child's
nervous system including: mental retardation, reading
disabilities, and speech or hearing impairment (CDC 1997).
Children under six years of age are especially sensitive to the
toxic effects of lead, since children absorb and retain more lead
in proportion to their body weight than do adults. Moreover,
children's nervous systems are still developing and are more
vulnerable to the effects of neurotoxic substances. Children are
exposed to lead primarily through lead-based paint and
contaminated soil and water.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has defined an elevated
blood lead level for children 1-5 years as 10 micrograms per
deciliter ( g/dL). However, studies suggest harmful effects of
lead can occur at even lower levels (Schwartz 1994). The CDC
regularly measures blood lead levels (BLLs) in children through
the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES). The NHANES is administered to a statistical
sample of children in the U.S.; its results are taken to be reliable
estimates of the BLLs of all children in the U.S.
The following chart shows that average BLLs in children aged
1 -5 years decreased from 2.7 g/dL for 1991-1994 to 2.2 g/dL
for 1999-2000. Other important findings from NHANES studies
not seen in the chart include:
Between the late 1970's and early 1990's, average
BLLs in children decreased approximately 80%. This
dramatic decline was primarily from the phase-out of
leaded gasoline, and resulting decline in lead emissions
(CDC 1997).
Elevated BLLs remain common among low-income
children, urban children, and those living in older
housing (Pirkle 1994).
According to NHANES III data, 16.4% of poor
children living in older housing had BLLs 10 g/dL or
higher.
Blood Lead Levels of Children Aged 1-5 Years,
1991-1999
Year
To provide more information about elevated BLL risks in
specific subgroups and geographic areas, the CDC also
measures progress at the state and local level. This is
accomplished through a program known as, the Childhood
Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS), which summarizing data from
state surveillance programs. The following chart provides a
summary of data collected from 1996 to 1998.
The number of children with BLLs 10 g/dL,
decreased by 28%.
The number of children with BLLs 15 and 20 g/dL
also decreased by 62% and 37%, respectively.
232
Chemical and Pesticide.* Results Measures //
-------
Blood Lead Levels in Children Aged 1-5 Years,
1996-1998 for Selected States
1 1(1
INotes: gML micrograms per deciliter of blood
Sources for 1996-1998 Data: NHANIHS III. Phase 2: NHANLS 1999. CHLS
1996-1998 as reported in the CDC MMWR (21100).
Source for 1999-2000 Data: The National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NIIANKS). 1999-2000. as reported by the CDC's Second National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available
online at: http: www.cdc.gov. exposure-report, (4 March 2003).
Source for 1991-1994 Data: The NHANLS as reported by Pirkle. J.L..
Kaufmann. K.B.. Brody. D.J., llickman, T., Gunter. l-l.W., & Paschal. IXC.
(1998. November). Exposure of the U.S. population to lead. 1991-1994.
1-nvirontnenial Health Perspectives, 106(11), 745-750.
Scale: The Second National Report on Human F;,xpusure lo Environmental
Chemicals and NHANHS data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the state or EPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing dala annually from CIX"s National Health and Nutrition
('summation Survey (NHANKS). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age. income,
region, urban.rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 1999 to 2000
from the NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The N!IAN!;S is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
The NHANKS is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionali/cd population. A household interview and physical examination
arc conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination.
blood and urine specimens arc collected, Lnvironmcnial chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. Second National Report on
Human Exposure lo Environmental Chemicals. 4 March 2003.
Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000. "Blood Lead Levels in
Young Children United Stales and Selected Stales. 1996-1999."
Mtirhidily and Mortality Weekly Re/tort, December 2000. 8 January
2003 Available online at:
http:" www. cdc.gov/mmwr/prcview/mmwrhtml/mm4930a3. htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997. "Update: Blood Lead Levels
United Stales, 1991 -1994." Morhulily anil Mortality Weekly
Repnil. 8 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www2cdc.gov/mmwr/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997. Screening Young Children
for f.i'ctd Poisoning; Guidance for Suite and Local
I'uMic Health Officials" CDC'. 8 January 2003. Available online at:
http: www.cdc.gov/nceh 'lead/guide guidc97.htm
Pirkle. J.L.. D.J. Brody, E.W. Ounter el al. 1994. "The Decline in Blood Lead
Levels in the United States: The National 1 Icalth and Nutrition
Examination Surveys (NHANHS). Journal of the American Medical
Association. July 27, 1994; 272(4): 2X4-29],
Schwart/. J. 1994. "Low-level lead exposure and children's 1Q: a meta-analysis
and search for a threshold". Hnvironmcnt. Volume 65. p. 42-55.
E//3
233
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Discharges/
Kmissions
Level 3
CHILDREN
BODY BURDEN
Level 4
LevelS
Outcomes
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Regulatory
Responses
Actions by
Regulated
Community I
TYPEB
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Blood Mercury Levels in Children
Mercury exposures to very young children are of great concern
because they are more sensitive to mercury than adults. Children
poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous
and digestive systems and kidney damage. Exposure to mercury
occurs from breathing contaminated air, ingesting contaminated
water and food, and having dental and medical treatments.
Children may also be exposed to mercury as nursing infants
through their mother's breast milk.
Due to the adverse human health affects associated with mercury
it is important to monitor mercury levels. This indicator was
developed to track blood mercury levels for children selected to
represent the general U.S. population ages 1 through 5 years
using the Second National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). The Report will provide
an ongoing assessment of the exposure of the U.S. population to
environmental chemicals. This data will establish the baseline
for blood mercury levels in children in future years and future
data will also be released in two-year groups. Data from the
2003 Report showed that:
the geometric mean for total blood mercury
concentration in children was 0.34 ug/L and
mercury levels in young children are generally below
those considered hazardous.
Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES),
1999-2000, as reported by the CDC's Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available online al:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport'' (4 March 2003).
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals and NHANKS data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the state or EPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
fExamination Survey (NHANKS). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age, income,
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 1999 to 2000
from the NHANES. II currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The NHANKS is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
The NHANKS is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionali/cd population. A household interview and physical examination
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination,
blood and urine specimens are collected. Environmental chemicals arc then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical in
their blood or urine docs not mean that the chemical will cause disease. Research
studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels of
specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Second National Report on
Human Exposure to Ktivirnnmenlal Chemicals. 4 March 2003.
Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
C'enters for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. "Blood and Hair Mercury
Levels in Young Children and Women of Childbearing Age - U.S.,
1999" Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 8 January 2003.
Available online at:
http://www.cdc. gov/mmwr/previcw/mmwrhtml'mrn5008a2.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HIIS), Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. ToxFAQs: Mercury. 8
January- 2003. Available online at:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
234
-------
SPECIAL
POPULATION
ISSUE 2:
ENVIROMENTAL JUSTICE
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Incidence of Asthma By Race
Comparative Chronic Health Risk Index for Toxic Releases by Race and Income
Body Burden of Toxic Substances by Race and Income
Blood Lead Levels in People Ages 1 and Older by Race
-------
SPECIAL POPULATIONS ISSUE 2:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Overview
An issue of increasing international and national importance is environmental justice.
One of the key components of the concept of sustainability is that all people are treated
fairly with regard to the distribution of the benefits and costs of society. There is a growing
concern that the distribution of negative environmental impacts are not proportionately
borne across the U.S society and the world, such that certain ethnic, age, gender, and
income groups disproportionately bear those impacts. Despite its importance, however,
~ ~~ the development of indicators and indicator systems to measure impacts has not occurred
to any significant degree. The lack of appropriate environmental data that can be effectively
overlaid with social, ethnic, economic, and cultural data, is a major limiting factor. Further, the issue can be politically
volatile, with cultural and methodological sensitivities that must be taken into account.
At the conclusion of CAPRM I. a review was conducted concerning areas of growth for the project. One of the suggested
areas was environmental justice. The importance of the issue, and the relative scarcity of indicator work, identified it as
an issue area ripe for investigation. The development of environmental justice indicators, however, is a difficult undertaking,
requiring careful methodological work and attention to political sensitivities. CAPRM II staff decided not to attempt to
develop a full system of indicators, but instead, to identify data sets relating to chemicals and pesticides that can be used
to prepare sample indicators. The indicators in CAPRM may serve as a starting point for a larger effort to develop a full
system of environmental justice indicators: and as models for local programs to develop their own indicators.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the Environmental Justice issue of CAPRM is to advance environmental indicator development for an
issue of major policy and program importance. The indicators were not developed for use as a recommended set. but as
a demonstration of how data can be used to construct environmental justice indicators. The mission of this part of
CAPRM II is to:
I. Review current research associated with environmental justice in the context of chemicals and pesticides;
2. Survey existing environmental indicator activities associated with environmental justice:
3. Identify the types of environmental justice issues relating to chemicals and pesticides that need to be addressed;
4. Identify data sets that can be used at the national level to develop environmental indicators for these issues: and
5. Develop national level sample indicators to show how the data sets can be used.
Full achievement of these objectives was not possible. Unfortunately, several data sources that had been expected to be
available were not accessible at publication and, consequently, several important series of indicators dealing with health
risk and body burden could not be produced. These indicators represented the focal point of the project's expectations
for environmental justice, and their loss was critical.
AMlil'DKl ic AFFAIR'*
iltl
237
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
However, project staff were able to conduct a survey of environmental justice work in the area of chemicals and pesticides,
take at least a preliminary look some other data sets capable of supporting environmental justice indicators, and develop
several example indicators.
Several conclusions can be drawn from these efforts:
1. Environmental justice is an issue of considerable interest and has a rapidly growing body of research associated with
it;
2. While some of the work may use indicators type information (trend data) to support the research, there is virtually no
evidence of explicit indicator system development, at least at the national level;
3. Data systems capable of supporting environmental justice indicators related to chemicals and pesticides, at the national
level, are relatively few. but have some promise. When data can be available from the Risk Screening Environmental
Indicator (RSEI) project, the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, and the National
Child Study, a sizable set of national health-based environmental justice indicators associated with chemicals and
pesticides are possible.
4. Considerably more research will be required before an acceptable set of indicators for national use can be developed.
Environmental Justice at the Environmental Protection Agency
Definition
Environmental justice has been defined by various organizations. The National Institute of National Health Sciences
(NIH) defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, programs, and policies" (NIH, 2002).
Robert Bullard states, "the environmental justice movement is about trying to address all of the inequities that result from
human settlement, industrial facility siting, and industrial development. It's more of a concept of trying to address power
imbalances, lack of political enfranchisement, and to redirect resources so that we can create some healthy, livable, and
sustainable types of models" (Errol Schweizer, 1999).
Perhaps the best and most complete definition, however, is provided by the U.S. EPA, which defines environmental justice
as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment
means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from
industrial, municipal, and commercial operations, or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies"
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Activities
A major cross-cutting policy issue of the Environmental Protection Agency has been their concern that the burden of
human environmental impacts has been inequitably shared across society, and that the heaviest burden has been borne by
segments of society that are the least capable of protecting themselves. All programs at the EPA have been charged with
the responsibility of identifying and correcting such disproportionate and inequitable impacts. For the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) such environmental justice concerns center around the differential impacts of
exposure to toxic chemicals and the application of pesticides for populations defined by social, ethnic, cultural, and economic
divisions.
The EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment, air, water, and land upon which
life depends. The EPA states that this holds true for the American public, regardless of race, color, national origin, culture,
education, or income, and where individuals live, learn, and work.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
238
EaiS!
-------
In her memorandum, dated August 9,2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman stated that the EPA was committed
to the issue of environmental justice and its integration into all programs, policies, and activities. In that memorandum,
Administrator Whitman also stated "environmental justice is achieved when everyone, regardless of race, culture, or
income enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-
making to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work" (Administrator Whitman, 2001).
On February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations," was signed. The aim of the agenda was to focus the attention of federal agencies on the
environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income communities. The Executive Order states that
each federal agency has to make achieving environmental justice a part of its mission. To achieve this federal agencies
must develop environmental justice strategies that identify and address disproportionately high exposure and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations (U.S. EPA, 2003).
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) Activities
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) major role is protecting public health and the
environment from the potential risk of toxic chemicals for present and future generations. OPPTS promotes pollution
prevention and the public's right to know about chemical risks. The program evaluates pesticides and chemicals to
safeguard all Americans, including children and other vulnerable members of the population, from environmental harm.
The program deals with the emerging issues of endocrine disruption and lead poisoning prevention as top priorities (U.S.
EPA, 2003).
The 1992 EPA report, Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk for All Communities revealed that minority and low-
income communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution in their neighborhoods than the general population. The
EPA has invested in a number of initiatives to help communities mitigate pollution damage in their neighborhoods.
These initiatives originally focused on acute and immediate problems faced by environmental justice committees. The
EPA recognizes that preventing pollution at the source can help break cycles of repeated degradation and injustice. The
EPA created Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention (EJP2) grant program to support pollution prevention
approaches in environmental justice communities as a strategy to help break the cycle (U.S. EPA, 1998).
In the first five years of the program, the EJP2 provided more than $15 million for a total of 198 innovative projects
identified by communities to prevent pollution. The EPA believes pollution prevention is the best method to address
environmental problems because it refocuses efforts from pollution control (cleaning up damaged environments) to
preventing degradation from happening in the first place. Through EJP2, the EPA funded a wide array of organizations
and communities interested in environmental justice, including urban areas, rural communities, tribes, different ethnic
groups, and the poor. The EPA designed the program as a fund for innovation. Through EJP2, a wide range of community
groups, tribes, and local governments identified environmental problems and potential approaches for their communities
within the general context of pollution prevention solutions. Industry, small businesses, farmers, teachers, students, and
residents across diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds have learned firsthand the value of pollution prevention in
reducing environmental risks within their communities (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Key Literature
Environmental Justice Overview Sources
There is a substantial and growing literature concerning environmental justice that extends well beyond the scope of the
project to present in detail. In this review, a few key sources will be identified.
General Sources
A useful overview of environmental justice is the Szasz and Meuser (1997) article titled "Environmental Inequalities:
Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory," It provides a good summary of research
that has been conducted on environmental justice and presents proposals for new directions in approaching environmental
justice research.
939
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Foreman (1998), in his book titled The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice, provides a comprehensive analysis of
environmental justice. Foreman shows why the environmental justice movement requires serious attention and recommends
specific institutional reform necessary for the movement to be more successful.
Studies Related to Chemicals and Pesticides
A number of studies have examined the disproportionate distribution of exposures to chemicals and pesticides: the health
risk associated with those exposures, body burden, and health effects as a function of race and income.
Szasz and Meuser (1997) give alternative explanations for the location of hazardous facilities. Their article "Environmental
Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory," states that hazardous facilities
might be sited for several reasons other than demographics such as closeness to the source of raw materials or consumers
of the product; abundant affordable acreage with access to infrastructure, such as highways, rail lines, rivers, or ports; the
area is zoned as industrial; or the geological conditions of the site are suitable. Because land prices near hazardous
facilities are inexpensive, poor minorities can afford to live in and around the facilities. Additionally, those who can afford
to leave, flee the area around the facility for some other area. Another explanation given assumes that the area chosen was
already different demographically, not chosen based on the demographic aspect but on the criteria, necessary for the
location of the hazardous facility. The researchers also propose explanations for sites chosen based on demographics, such
as neighborhood acceptance for the facility in hope that it will create jobs, taxes, and perhaps long range renewal and
stabilization. The site could also be chosen because the residents are seen as less likely to resist the siting, a position
consistent with Bullard's observations. Szasz and Meuser (1997) further state that a neighborhood may be chosen out of
racial prejudice and discrimination. The researchers suggest that further research should examine the local histories of a
neighborhood to determine which of these processes are at work.
Been (1994) believed that determining whether toxic waste landfills came to the low-income minority neighborhoods or
whether the poor and minorities came to the sites was important for public policy. He believed that determining siting
processes, market dynamics, or some combination of the two, resulted in a situation necessary in determining on what
solutions to focus. Been believed this was lacking from the previous studies conducted; and that the history of the
neighborhoods could be used to accurately determine which process was at work.
Several studies by EPA have indicated that minority and low-income communities often bear a disproportionate level of
the environmental and health effects of pollution (EPA. 2002). The Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental
Hazards held at the University of Michigan in 1990 cemented these developments. At this conference, researchers and
activists came together to share their latest findings and then met with state and federal officials to discuss the necessary
strategies for change. At the conference. Mohai and Bryant presented 15 studies that provided objective and systematic
information about the social distribution of environmental hazards. They found that in nearly every case, the distribution
of pollution was inequitable by income and in all cases with only one exception; distribution of pollution was inequitable
by race (Mohai & Bryant, 1993).
Szasz et al. (1993) used the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to make comparisons between tracts of low and high-income
levels. The study found that facilities were most likely to be located in tracts with a 520.000-50,000 income range. Within
this range there was a clear race gradient. The study found that as the African-American and Latino percentage increased,
the likelihood that the tract had toxics emitting industry located within it increased.
Some epidemiological studies have examined the link between facility operation and exposure to toxics and negative
health effects. Greshwind, Stolwijk, Bracken, Fitzgerald, Carolyn and Melius (1992) conducted an example of such a
study: the result indicated that maternal proximity to hazardous waste sites might carry a small additional risk of bearing
children with congenital malformations. However, this study is less useful for national application because the study had
limited geographic scope and various factors were difficult to control.
Philips and Birchard (1991) and Philips (1992), examined human toxic exposure nationwide; however the studies were not
linked to specific facilities and used large geographic areas. The data from the study linked increases in background toxic
levels to increased accumulation of those toxics in human tissue. This could be used to provide evidence of a link if
^40 '*",'-"m,"'.v,"X>'
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II ~
-------
ha/ardous waste sites could be shown to have higher background levels of toxins within their vicinity. Stockwell,
Sorensen. Eckert and Carreras (1993), used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to examine the geographic
distribution of EPA Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) data. The EPA toxicity matrix provided analysis of TRI
chemicals according to possible human health and environmental effects they can produce. When applied to the EPA
Region IV (Southeast), the GIS map showed gradation on a county scale of TRI emissions, and those emissions based on
type of potential toxic effects.
Bullard (1990) identified evidence of environmental racism in several communities. A West Dallas, Texas neighborhood,
which is 85% black, is the home of the 63-acre Murph metals lead smelter. Also. Alsen, a community in Louisiana which
is 99% black, is located at the beginning of the 85-mile industrial corridor where a quarter of America's petrochemicals
are made. Located adjacent to the Alsen community is the fourth largest commercial ha/ardous waste site in the nation,
Rollins Services facility. Bullard also examined the Etnelle community, located in Alabama, which is 90% black. This
community is located near the nation's largest ha/ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
Explicit Environmental Justice Indicators
In 1994 the Strategic Assessment of Florida's Environment (SAFE) Report, developed indicators that were concerned
with the distribution of households in proximity to TRI facilities. Additionally, other indicators were developed to
examine average pollutant releases grouped by racial composition. Using information from the 1990 Census and Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) data reports, it was shown that race and ethnicity are critical in explaining proximity to TRI
facilities. The percentage of each racial/ethnic group living within a mile or less from the nearest facility was just over
five percent of all households earning $14,999 or less. For low-income Native Americans the percentage living within
a mile or less of the facility was 5.97% and Hispanics, 6.4%. The low-income African American percentage was
substantially higher at 8.27% living within a half mile of a TRI facility. The average pollutant releases indicator showed
that increases in the concentration of African Americans and Native Americans is generally associated with increased
average air releases. Therefore, there is a concentration of minorities in areas of increased air releases, within a mile or
less of TRI facilities. (Bergquist et al., 1994). These are the only indicators found during the project that were part of a
formal environmental indicator system.
Environmental Justice Issue Dimensions
Pathologies and Direct Health Impacts
The most powerful indicators of human environmental health would be those that can measure direct relationships
between chemical exposure and physical health effects. Unfortunately, the science and the data needed to support these
relationships are not currently available. Many health effects have multiple causes that prevent measurement of the
contribution of specific chemical exposures to specific health effects. The genetic factors associated with race and
ethnicity, and the diversity of associated lifestyles add yet additional variables for scientists to research. For many
chemicals, it is unknown precisely what long-term effects they will have on human health. For those chemicals about
which some effects are known, there still exists the ignorance of some long-term risks.
The National Children's Study is initiating new data collection processes that may produce the evidence necessary to
establish such relationships. This project will examine the effects of environmental influences, including chemical
bioassay data, on the health and development of more than 100,000 children, following them from before birth until age
21. This project will have the explicit benefit of allowing bioassay information to be related to health and pathology
outcomes. It is not clear as yet if this data will allow useful racial, ethnic, and income distinctions.
Health Risk
A potential intermediate measurement of the impact of chemicals on human health is the estimation of the change in risk
associated with increases or decreases in chemical exposure. Environmental justice indicators are concerned with whether
or not certain populations are at greater health risk than others. While the concept of risk is thoroughly integrated into the
culture of environmental protection agencies, and risk-based analysis is increasingly employed to make environmental
decisions, risk-based data sets suitable for indicator development have not existed until recently. The Risk Screening
,s,, ,;,,««, -Ml
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) project at the EPA permits the estimation of human health risk resulting from modeled
exposure to Toxics Release Inventory chemicals.
Unfortunately, the potential of RSEI could not be tapped for this project and a number of planned indicators could not be
executed. Census definitions relating to racial or ethnic identifications could not be resolved in time for inclusion in the
model. Further, Census data associated with income distribution was not available for the latest release of RSEI. When
these elements are in place, however, the potential for development of a series of indicators relating to the distribution of
health effects from chemical releases based on race, ethnicity, and income will be high.
Body Burden
A more direct assessment of various populations' exposure to environmental chemicals is to measure human body burden
by race, ethnicity, or income. Through the use of biomonitoring, scientists are able to measure chemicals directly in blood
and urine samples rather than to estimate population exposures by measuring air, water, or soil samples. Of particular
concern are toxic chemicals that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissues, and result in
negative health effects. Such chemicals - known as persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) - are worthy of special
consideration because of the serious health risk they pose. The measurement of bioaccumulation of these substances does
not measure direct health effects, but it is a good surrogate measure.
The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals developed by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) has just released the first set of two-year aggregations of high-quality biomonitoring data
for 116 important chemical constituents associated with health issues. The first year data was released in 2001 and provides
a baseline for subsequent studies. The first report provided data for lead, mercury, cadmium, and other metals;
dialkylphosphate metabolites of organophosphate pesticides; cotinine; and phthalates. The second report presents exposure
data from NHANES 1999-2000 for 116 chemicals, including expanded information on 27 chemicals listed in the first
report and an additional 89 chemicals. This report also presents data for the U.S. population by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.
(CDC, 2003). As data are collected over the years, researchers will be better able to determine possible health effects and
design appropriate public health strategies. This data, released too late to be fully used in this report, should be an increasingly
productive source of indicator data for environmental j ustice. Also a second major future source of biomonitoring information
is the National Children's Study which is currently being developed. If the sampling resolutions for race and ethnicity for
these programs is high enough, some very interesting environmental justice indicators can be developed.
References
Andelman, J.B. & D.W. Underbill, eds. (1987). Health Effects from Hazardous Waste Sites. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
Anderton, D.L., A.B. Anderson, J.M. Oukes & M. R. Eraser (1994). "Environmental Equity: The Demographics of Dumping."
Demography, 31(2): 229-248.
Been. V. (1994). "Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or Market Dynamics?"
Yale law journal, 103(6): 1383-422.
Been. V. (1994). "Unpopular Neighbors: Are Dumps and Landfills Sited Equitably? Resources Spring, 1994.
Been, V. (1993). "What's Fairness Got to Do With It? Environmental Justice and the Siting of Locally Undesirable Land
Uses." Cornell Law Review, 78: 1001-1085.
Bergquist, G. T., Pable, A. M., & Jernigan, J. (1994a). Average pollutant releases grouped by racial composition. Strategic
Assessment of Florida's Environment, pp. 258-259.
Bergquist, G. T.. Pable, A. M., & Jernigan, J. (I994b). Distribution of households in proximity to TRI facilities. Strategic
Assessment of Florida's Environment, pp. 256-257.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
242
-------
Boerner, C. & Lambert, T. (1995). Environmental Justice in the City of St. Louis: The Economics of Siting Industrial and
Waste Facilities. St. Louis, Missouri: Center for the Study of American Business.
Boswell, M.R. (1995). Environmental Equity Literature Review. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, FSU.
Bowen, W.M., Sailing. M.J.. Haynes, K.E., & Cyran E.J, (1995). "Toward Environmental Justice:Spatial Equity in
Ohio and Cleveland." Annals of the Association of American
Geographers. 85 (4): 641-663.
Bower. B.T. (Fids.), Environmental Quality Analysis: Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press.
Brajer, V. & Hal,I J.V. (1992). "Recent Evidence on the Distribution of Air Pollution Effects." Contemporary Policy
Issues, 10:63-71.
Bullard. R.D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bullard, R.D. (1996). "Environmental Justice: It's More Than Waste Facility Siting." Social Science Quarterly 77, (3):
493-499.
Bullard. R. D. (1983). "Solid Waste Sites and the Black Community." Sociological Inquiry, 53: 273-288.
Burke. L.M. (1993). "Race and Environmental Equity: A Geographic Analysis in Los Angeles. "Geo-lnfo Systems.
October: 44-50.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). National Report on Human Exposure to National Environmental
Chemicals: Report Summary. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report
Commission for Racial Justice. United Church of Christ. (1987). Toxic Wastes and Race in the U.S.: A National Report
on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Ha/ardous Waste Sites.
Cuesta, D.E. (1998). Environmental Injustices, Political Struggles: Race, Class, and the Environment. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Dobson, A. (1998). Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability Theories of Distributive
Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Environmental Defense. (2003). Scorecard. Create and Examine Environmental Maps for Communities of your Choice.
Available online at: http://www.scorecard.org/
The Environmental justice information page. (1997). Definitions of Environmental Justice Terms. http://www-
personal.uniich.edu/~jraJ7.er/nre/index.html
Environmental Justice Resource Center. (2003). People of Color Environmental Summit II. Available online at: hup://
www.ejrc.cau.edu/EJSUMMITwlecome.html
Foreman. Christopher. J.. Jr. (1998). The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Washington D.C.: The Brookings
Institution Press.
Freeman. A.M., Ill (1972). The Distribution of Environmental Quality. In A.V. Kneese and B.T. Bower (Eds.),
Environmental Quality Analysis: Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
243
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Greshwind, S., Stolwijk, J., Bracken, M., Fitzgerald, S., Carolyn, O., and Melius, J. (1992). "Risk of Congenial Malformations
Associated with Proximity to Hazardous Waste Sites." American Journal of Epidemiology, 135, (11): 1197-1207.
Haan, M., Kaplan, G. & Camacho, T. (1987). "Poverty and Health: Prospective Evidence From the Alameda County
Study." American Journal of Epidemiology, 125: 989-998.
Hahn, R., Eaker, E., Barker. N., Teutsch, S., Sosniak, W. & Krieger. N. (1996). Poverty and Death in the United States.
International Journal of Health Services, 26 (4): 673-690.
Hemingway, H.. Nicholson, A., Stafford, M., Roberts, R., & Marmot, M. (1997). "The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on
Health Functioning as Assessed by the SF-36 Questionnaire: The Whitehall II Study." American Journal of Public Health.
87(9): 1484-1490.
Hersh, R. (1995). Race and Industrial Hazards: An Historical Geography of the Pittsburgh Region, 1900-1990. Washington,
DC: Resources for the Future.
Hird, J.A. (1993). "Environmental Policy and Equity: The Case of the Superfund." Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 12(2): 323-43.
Hurley, A, (1995). Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945-1980. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Kawachi, I., & Marmot, M.G. (1998). "Commentary: What Can We Learn from Studies of Occupational Class and
Cardiovascular Disease?" American Journal of Epidemiology 148 (2): 160-163.
Kneese, A.V. & Bower, B. T. (1972). Environmental Quality Analysis: Theory and Method in the Social Sciences.
Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins Press.
Kraft, M.E., & Scheberle, D. (1995). "Environmental Justice and the Allocation of Risk - The Case of Lead and Public
Health." Policy Studies Journal 23 (1): 113-122.
Krieger, N, DL Rowley, AA Herman, B Avery, and MT Phillips. (1993). "Racism, Sexism, and Social Class: Implications
for Studies of Health, Disease, and Well-Being." America Journal of Preventive Medicine, 9 (6): 82-122.
Kubzansky, L.D., Berkman, L.F., Glass, T.A.& Seeman, T.E. (1998). "Is Educational Attainment Associated with Shared
Determinants of Health in the Elderly? Findings from the MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging." Psychosomatic Medicine,
60 (5): 578-585
Lazarus, RJ. (1993). "Pursuing 'Environmental Justice': The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection."
Northwestern University Law Review 87 (3): 787-845.
Mohai, P. & Bryant, B. (1992). Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence. In B. Bryant and P. Mohai (Eds.). Race
and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder. CO: Westview Press.
Morello-Frosch, R.A., Pastor. M., & Sadd, J.L. (2000). Environmental Justice and Southern California's 'Riskscape': The
Distribution of Air Toxics Exposures and Health Risks Among Diverse Communities. Urban Affairs Review.
Moses. M.. Johnson, E.S., Anger, W.K., Burse, V.W., el al. 1993. "Environmental Equity and Pesticide Exposure."
Toxicology and Industrial Health, 9 (5): 913-959.
National Children's Study, 29 January 2003. Available online at: http://nationalchildrensstudy.gov/
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
244
-------
National Institute of Health Sciences. (2002). Department of Health and Human Sciences. Available online at: http://
www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/justice.htm
Pastor, M., Sadd, J .L., & Hipp, J. (2000). "Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move- In, and Environmental
Justice." Journal of Urban Affairs (In Press).
Perlin SA, RW Setzer, J Creason and K Sexton. (1995). "Distribution of Industrial Air Emissions by Income and Race
in the United States: An Approach Using the Toxic Release Inventory." Environmental Science and Technology, 29( 1):
69-80.
Philips, L. J. (1992). "A Comparison of Human Toxics Exposure and Environmental Contamination by Census Division."
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 22: 1-5.
Philips, L. J., & Birchard, G. F. (1991). "Regional Variations in Human Toxics Exposure in the USA: An Analysis Based
on the National Human Adipose Tissue Survey." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 21: 159-
168.
Pollock, P.H., & Vittas, M.E. (1995). "Who Bears the Burden of Environmental Pollution? Race. Ethnicity, and
Environmental Equity in Florida." Social Science Quarterly 76 (2): 294-310.
Pulido, L., Sidawi, S., & Vos, R.O. (1996). "An Archeology of Environmental Racism in Los Angeles." Urban Geography,
17 (5): 419-439.
Robinson, J.C. (1984). Racial Inequality and the Probability of Occupational Related Injury or Illness. Milbank Quarterly
62 (4): 567-590.
Sadd, J.L., Pastor, M. Boer, T.,& Snyder, L.D. (1999). "Every Breath You Take: The Demographics of Toxic Air
Releases in Southern California." Economic Development Quarterly. 13 (2): 107-123.
Schlosberg, D. (1999). Environmental Justice and the New Pluralism: The Challenge of Difference for Environmentalism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schweizer. E. (1999). Environmental Justice: An Interview with Robert Bullard, Earth First Journal, http://www.ejnet.org/
ej/bul lard.html
Stockwell. J. R.. Sorensen. J. W., Eckcrt. J. W., Jr.. & Carreras, K. W. (1993). "The U.S. EPA Geographic In Information
System for Mapping Environmental Releases of Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Chemicals." Risk Analysis,
13.2: 155-64.
Syme. S. & Berkman. L. (1976). Social Class. Susceptibility and Sickness. American Journal of Epidemiology 104 (I):
1-8.
S/asz. A.. Meuser. M.. Aronson, H. & Fukurai. H. (1993). "Demographics of Proximity to Toxic Pollution: the Case
of Los Angeles County" paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Miami.
Szasz. A. (1994). Ecopopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Szasz. A. & Meuser. M. (1997). "Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in
Research and Theory." Current Sociology. 45(3): 99-120,
245
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice Query Mapper. Available
online at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/ejmapper.html
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Office of Environmental Justice Resource Center. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Environmental Justice in Waste Programs, Executive Summary. Available
online at: http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/html-doc/execsum.htm
Wemette, D.R., & Nieves, L.A. (1991). Minorities and Air Quality Non Attainment Areas: A Preliminary Geo-Demographic
Analysis. Paper read at Socioeconomic Energy and Research Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Zimmerman, R. (1993). "Social Equity as Environmental Risk." Risk analysis, 13(6): 649-66.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures U
246
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PATHOLOGIES
SOCIKTAL RKSPONSI!
Regulatory
Responses
TYPEA
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Incidence of Asthma by Race
Asthma is a chronic lung disease characterized by airway
inflamation and obstruction in which symptoms include
wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath (Mannino. Homa,
Pertowski, Ashizawa, Nixon, Johnson, Ball, Jack, & Kang,
1998). Asthma may be caused or triggered by "familial.
infectious, allergenic, sociocconomic, psychosocial, and
environmental factors" (Mannino et ah, 1998, p. 1). Although
there is no cure for asthma, it can be treated with anti-
inflammatory agents (inhaled steroids) and bronchodilators.
Another way to control asthma is to avoid environmental
triggers such as allergens, viruses, tobacco smoke, certain
chemicals, and other indoor and outdoor air pollutants (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002). With good
management, people with asthma may gain control over the
disease. An estimated 25% of children with asthma show no
symptoms when they become adults (American Lung
Association, 2002). However, damage to the lungs due to
asthma may become irreversible if the condition persits for a
long period of time and is insufficiently treated (Mannino ct ah,
1998).
Asthma affects nearly 15 million Americans, more than 5
percent of the U.S. population. The scope of the health care
problem caused by asthma lies not only in the large number of
Americans with the disease, but also in the limitations that
asthma imposes on daily activities, such as school, work, sports,
and recreation. Asthma is the leading cause of school
absenteeism for children and a common cause of work
absenteeism for adults.
Although asthma affects Americans of all races, minorities and
low-income populations have significantly "higher rates of
fatalities, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits due to
asthma" than the overall population (Dept. of Health and Human
Services, 2000). According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) (2002), blacks are significantly more
likely than whites to experience childhood asthma.
The following charts show trends in asthma incidence by race in
the U.S., as measured in the National Health Interview Survey
between 1982 and 1999. Due to the use of a new design in the
Survey in 1997, asthma incidence rates prior to 1997 cannot be
compared with later rates.
From 1982 to 1996, asthma incidence rates increased
for both whites and blacks.
Except for 1984, each year, blacks had a higher rate of
asthma incidence than whites.
In 1982, 35 out of 1,000 whites had asthma while 39
out of 1,000 blacks had asthma.
In 1996, 54 out of 1,000 whites had asthma while 70
out of 1,000 blacks had asthma.
Asthma incidence rates for blacks have increased at a
significantly faster rate than for whites.
Asthma Incidence Rates By Race, 1982-1996
IVKJ 19K(i 1-1X7 I9SS 11K9 !«() I'WI 1912 IW 1W4 IW I9'»
Yt.r
247
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Asthma Incidence by Race, 1982-1996
- Wliik-
Itbil
I.m-1 White)
I u*l Black)
5 !1M«» 19S7 NH.S 1^9 1'WII l
Year
From 1997-1999, (here was a small decline in asthma
incidence rates for both whites and blacks. However,
more data points are needed to establish an overall
trend.
In 1997, 41 out of 1,000 whites had asthma while 49
out of 1,000 blacks had asthma.
In 1999, 37 out of 1,000 whites had asthma while 46
out of 1,000 blacks had asthma.
Asthma Incidence Rates by Race, 1997-1999
Note: An incidence of usthma was defined as answering yes lo "Have you
HVKR been told by a doctor or olher health professional that you had asthma?"
and "During the past 12 MONTHS, have you had an episode of asthma or
asthma attack'.'"
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey,
1982-1996, 1997-1999 as reported in the Trends in Asthma Morbidity and
Mortality. h'ebruary 2002 by the American Lung Association.
Sculc: Asthma incidence data is at the national level and is not available at the
slate or local level.
Data Characteristic!! and Limitations: These estimates are based on a sample.
Therefore, they may differ from the figures that would be obtained from a census
of the population, liaeh data point is an estimate of the true population value and
is subject to sampling variability. Due to the use of a new design in the National
Health Interview Survey in 1997, asthma incidence rates prior to 1997 cannot be
compared with later rates.
References
American l.ung Association. (2002). Asthma. 31 January 2003. Available
online at: hllp:'.'www.lungusa.org/asthma/.
Centers for Disease C'ontrol and Prevention. (2002). Asthma. 31 January 2003.
Available online at: http: wwvv.cdc.go\ 'nceh/airpollution, asthma..
Department of Health and 11 urnan Serv ices. May 2000. Action against asthma:
A strategic plan for the Department of Health and Human Sen ices.
31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:/'aspe.hhs.gov/sp/asthma/jndex.htm - toe.
Mannino, D.M., Homa, D.M., Pertowski, C.A., Ashi/awa, A., Nixon, L.I..,
Johnson, C.A.. Ball, L.B.. Jack, I:., & Rang, D.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. (April 24, 1998). Surveillance for asthma -
United Slates, 1960-1995. Mortality ami Mortality WeMy, 47(SS-l),
1-28. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www. cdc.gov/epo.1 mmwr/previcw/mmwrhtml/00052262. htm.
National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. 1982-
1996, 1997-1999 as reported in the Trends in Asthma Morbidity and
Mortality, February 2002 by the American Lung Association. 31
January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.1ungiisa.org/data/aslhma/ASTIIIVlAdl.pdf.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
248
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
HEALTH RISK
PRBSSURE
BFFI'CTS
Level 3
Level 4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
Human/
Ideological
Health Risk
Level 6
Level 7
MwamJI
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
I
Indicator: Comparative Chronic Health Risk Index For Toxic Releases by
Race and Income
The ideal measurement of the human health impacts of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database of reported
toxic chemical releases into the environment. TRI data are
commonly used as a measure of toxic exposure. TRI data are
normally reported by the volume of releases of a specific
chemical or set of chemicals or by the volume of managed waste.
A limitation of this reporting system is that it does not account
for the relative toxicities of the individual chemicals. These
toxicities vary such that the many possible combinations of less
toxic chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide range
of health risk posed by a given volume of release. To redress
this limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT) developed the Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators (RSEI). The RSEI represent an analytical expansion
of TRI by incorporating data that, for each chemical: reflects the
toxicity, models the fate, and estimates the si/e and distribution
of the receptor population. By incorporating these data with the
TRI, the human health risk posed by a toxic chemical release can
be estimated.
The analysis available through the RSH1 produces an unanchored
or unit-less measure of health risk. These measures can only be
interpreted relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons
of health risk over time. For this indicator, the health risk
measures would be adjusted to create a health risk index. It is
conventional to present unit-less data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g.. the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the health risk estimate for the baseline year would
be adjusted to equal a value of 100; subsequent estimates less
than or greater than 100 would indicate a decrease or increase in
the health risk posed by toxic chemical releases, respectively. In
a broad sense, this indicator would reflect whether or not certain
segments of the U.S. population (i.e. racial and income level
groups) have a greater risk of adverse health effects from
environmental toxics than others. It would also show trends in
health risk for those segments over time.
Measuring the chronic (long-term) health risk for toxic releases
by race and income is important for determining which groups in
society are most affected by toxic chemical releases. According
to Whitman (2001), "environmental justice is achieved when
everyone, regardless of race, culture, or income, enjoys the same
degree of protection from environmental and health ha/ards."
Therefore, the health risk posed to different racial and income
level groups by toxic chemical releases must be measured. Once
any disparate health risks are determined, the next step for
achieving environmental justice is to find out why they exist.
For example, if low-income neighborhoods have a higher health
risk than high-income neighborhoods, it might be because they
lack the financial and organizational resources to successfully
oppose the location of facilities and industries that release toxic
chemicals in or near their neighborhoods. Once the causes of
disparate health risks can be explained, action can be taken to
correct them.
Currently, the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators can
produce estimates of disparate chronic health risks only by age
group. The OPPT is modifying the RSEI model to estimate
disparate health risks by other socioeconomic characteristics,
including income and race. Income information has not yet been
incorporated into the model and the Census must resolve the
inconsistencies in ethnic identifications before the model will be
able to estimate health risks by race. RSEI will aggregate the
impacts associated with toxic releases that affect a certain
geographic area. Then, the model will use demographic
information on the affected population in that area to study the
distribution of environmental impacts for different racial and
income level groups.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator would not be a complete measure of
249
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
the total chronic health risk of the entire population. It may be
inferred, however, as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is
making in reducing the chronic health risk posed by toxic
chemicals.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. This past year, the TRI was expanded
to include the reporting of releases from seven new economic
sectors electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
Currently, only a single year of data is available. In future years,
this will provide the baseline for standard TRI indicators and will
provide a much more complete and accurate reflection of the
scope and impact of releases into the environment and managed
wastes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory- (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and cannot reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators represent an attempt to capitalize
on Iht extensive chemical inventory that constitutes TRI and to introduce
flexibility and manipulability of the inventory by introducing new data elements.
These new data elements allow estimations of toxicity, fate, and si/c and
distribution of the receptor population for a toxic chemical release. The RSEI
model integrates estimated loxieity scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories with a measure of exposure potential based upon reported multi-
media release and transfer data and the si/e of the potentially exposed general
population. The result is a screening level, risk-related perspective for relative
comparisons of chemical releases. The flexibility of the model provides the
opportanily not only to examine trends, but also to rank and prioritize chemicals
for strategic planning, risk-related targeting, and community -based
environmental protection.
The data elements thai will be used to construct this indicator are:
Air Releases
Fugitive Air Releases
Stack Air
Water Releases
Direct water
POTW Transfers
Land Releases
Onsite Landfill
Land Treatment'Application/Farming
Surface Impoundment
Other Land Disposal
Other Landfills
Underground injection treatment was not included among the releases to land
due to the very small health risk posed by injection.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can be viewed on the national level, as well
as by EPA regions, stales, counties, cities, and zip codes.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which
chemicals enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water
and land from facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to
ihe environment. This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies of
water, and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells.
Releases to air are reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff arc also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well. Depending on the concentrations
and length of exposure, human health effects from toxics may include cancer
and respiratory, developmental, and neurological conditions.
Also included in the TRI are a variety of transfers of toxic chemicals. Transfers
include amounts transferred off site for recycling, energy recovery, treatment,
and disposal.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998, non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining,
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
ha/ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
docs not require that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are
used where monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy
and coverage. Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to rceogni/e that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recenl TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (2000). 1W8 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data
Release: Printed copies arc also available and may be ordered online
from: U.S. EPA NSCEP, Atln.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box
42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, Fax: (513) 489-8695. Phone:
(800) 490-9198. 1 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cpa.gov/tri/tridat4i/tri9tt/indux.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1999). Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Fact
Sheet.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1999). User's Manual /or KPA's Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators Model: I'ersion 1.02
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. (1997). Toxic Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators Methodology.
Whitman, C.T. (2001). (,'.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, memorandum. EPA's
commitment to environmental juslicc. 7 January 2003. Available
online at:
htlp:'/ww^.cpa.gov/CompIiance/resource.s/policies/ej,''admin_cj_corn
mil_lcttcr_OSI40l.pdf
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Indicators, as
well as other information relating to Risk Screening Indicators may be viewed or
downloaded at http://www.cpa.gov'opptmtr:'cnv_ind/. To obtain a copy of the
model, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information Service, (202) 554-1404,
Tsca-hot I inef« epa. gov).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
250
-------
PRESSURK
Discharges/
I Emissions
Level 3
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
BODY BURDEN
Body
Burden/
fptakc I Health Risk
Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
Outcomes I Outputs I
TYPE A
TVPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Body Burden of Toxic Substances by Race and Income
The ideal measurement of the human health impact of toxic
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific pathologies in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected toxic chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals, and measures of the
releases of toxic chemicals into the environment.
Some population groups are disproportionately at higher risk for
elevated levels of toxic substances. These are usually people
with low income, non-Hispanic black, and persons living in
large metropolitan areas, or in older housing (Pirkle, Brody,
Gunter, Kramer. Paschal. Hegal, Matte, 1994).
The Second National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals (2003) will provide an ongoing
assessment of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental
chemicals using biomonitoring. The Report provides exposure
information for people participating in the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC's), National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 1999-2000. This
data will establish the baseline for these chemical levels in future
years and future data will also be released in two-year groups.
The Report presents levels of 116 environmental chemicals
measured in the U.S. population.
The 116 chemicals included in the Report belong to one of the
following chemical groups:
metals
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
tobacco smoke
phthalates
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated
dibcnzofurans. and coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls
polychlorinated biphenyls
phytoestrogens
organophosphatc pesticides
organochlorinc pesticides
carbamate pesticides
herbicides
pest repellents and disinfectants
An indicator for blood lead levels by race has been developed
and a detailed description is provided in this updated Chemical
and Pesticides Results Measures document.
In the future the Report will provide more detailed assessments
of each environmental chemical by race and income.
Source: The National Health and Nutrition lixamination Survey (NHANES),
1999-2000, as reported by the C'IX"s Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available online at:
http:www.cdc.gov/cxposurereport/ (4 March 200.1).
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Kxpusurc to Environmental
Chemicals and NIIANKS data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the stale or FPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANKS). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age, income,
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 1999 to 2000
from the NHANKS. It currently provides information about levels of 116
environmental chemicals in the U.S. population.
The NHANES is conducted by the CIX' National Center for Health Statistics.
The NHANES is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionalized population. A household interview and physical examination
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination.
blood and urine specimens arc collected. Knvironmcnlal chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an en% ironmental chemical
in their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical will cause disease.
Research studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels
of specified chemicals will cause disease.
251
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Reference
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Stcnnd National Report on
Human Kxpmturr r
-------
Level 3
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
BODY BURDEN
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
J Outputs I
**,4 maim ^^^^J
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Blood Lead Levels in People Ages 1 and Older by Race
The ha/ardous effects of lead on human health have been well
researched and established. Lead ean affect almost every organ
and system in the body and cause both acute and chronic health
problems. The most sensitive system to lead in the body is the
central nervous system. In adults, lead may decrease reaction
time, cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles, and possibly
affect the memory. Lead also damages kidneys and the immune
system. Lead may cause anemia, abortion, or damage to the
male reproductive system. Several chemical compounds of lead
such as, lead acetate and lead phosphate are suspected
carcinogens based on studies in animals; however there is
inadequate evidence to clearly determine lead's carcinogcnicily
in humans (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 199.1).
Humans arc exposed to lead through a number of sources. The
most common sources of lead exposure include:
* Breathing workplace air (lead smelting, refining, and
manufacturing industries);
Drinking water that comes from lead pipes or lead
soldered fittings;
Breathing or ingesting contaminated soil, dust, air, or
water near waste sites;
Breathing tobacco smoke;
Eating contaminated food grown on soil containing lead
or food covered with lead-contaminated dust;
Breathing fumes or ingesting lead from hobbies that use
lead (leaded-glass, ceramics).
Because of the multiple pathways for lead exposure and the
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure, it is
important to monitor lead body burden. This indicator tracks
blood lead levels using the Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003) and the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report
will provide an ongoing assessment of the exposure of the U.S.
population to environmental chemicals.
There has been a substantial decline of blood lead levels of the
entire U.S. population since the late 1970s. The major cause of
this decline was the removal of 99.8% of lead from gasoline and
the removal of lead from soldered cans. Even with this decline
in blood lead levels, some population groups are
disproportionately at higher risk for elevated lead exposure.
These are usually persons with low income, non-Hispanic
blacks, and persons living in large metropolitan areas or in older
housing (Pirkle, Brody, Gunter, Kramer, Paschal, Flegal, Matte,
1994).
The following chart shows trends in blood lead levels of people
age I year and older from 1976 to 2000. Due to the
unavailability of Mexican American data prior to 1991, blood
lead levels prior to 199] cannot be compared with later years.
I-'rom 1991 to 2000 blood lead levels for each race
declined, however, more data points are needed to
establish an overall trend.
f'"or 1999-2000, the mean blood lead level for Mexican
Americans was 0.94 g/dL; for blacks it was 0.72
g/dL; and for whites it was 0.69 g/dL.
Blood Lead Levels in People Aged 1 Year and
Older by Race, 1976-2000
fibck, rum-Hispanic
' K'hJte. ntui-ilitpanii'
Notes: g/dL micrograms per deciliter of blood
253
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source for 1999-2000 Data: The National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES). 1999-2000. as reported by the CDCs Second Naiiooal
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2003). Available
online at: rmp://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/ (4 March 2003).
Source for 1991-1994 Data: National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) as reported by Pirkle, J.I... Kaufmann. R.B.. Brody, D.J.. Hickman.
T., Gunter. E.W.. & Paschal, D.C. (1998. November). Exposure of (he U.S.
population to lead, 1991-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106(11).
745-'?50.
Source for 1976-1980 & 1988-1991 Data: National Health & Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) as reported by Pirkle, J.L.. Brody, D.J., Gunter.
E.W.. Kramer, R.A.. Paschal. D.C.. Flegal. K.M. Matte. T.D. (1994). The
decline in blood lead levels in the United Slates: The National Health and
Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Journal of the American Medical
Association. 272(4), 2X4-291.
Scale: The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals and NHANES data provide national estimates and cannot be
disaggregated to the state or EPA regional levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The Report provides exposure
information by drawing data annually from CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). It displays levels of exposure for these
chemicals disaggregated, where possible, by gender, race/ethnicity, age. income.
region, urban/rural residence and other variables. The second release of the
Report is restricted to general U.S. population data for the years 1999 to 2000
from the NHANES. It currently provides information about levels of ! 16
environmental chemicals in the L'.S. population.
The NHANES is conducted by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
The NHANES is administered to a sample of people in the civilian non-
institutionalized population. A household interview and physical examination
are conducted for each survey participant. During the physical examination,
blood and urine specimens arc collected. Environmental chemicals are then
measured in the specimens.
It is important to note that just because people have an environmental chemical
in their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical will cause disease.
Research studies separate from the Report are required to determine which levels
of specified chemicals will cause disease.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Second National Report vn
Human Exposure to Environmental Chemirals.4 M arch2 003.
Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/cxpixsurereport/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Update: Blood lj;ad Levels-United
States, 1991-1994." Morbidity-and Mortality Weekly Report,
February 1997. 8 January 2003. Available online at:
http://\v ww2.cdc.gov/mmwr/.
Pirkle, JL. Kaufmann RB, Brody DJ, Hickman T. Gunter EW. Paschal
DC. (1998). "Exposure of the U.S. Population to I-ead. 1991-1994."
Environ Health Perspect HX>:745-51).
Pirkle, J.L., Brody. D.J.. Gunter. E.W.. Kramer. R.A.. Paschal. D.C.. Regal.
K.M. Matte, T.D. (1994). The decline in blood lead levels in the United
States: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys
(NHANES). Journal of the American Med'u-al Association. 27214). 284-
291.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (1993). ATSDK Toxf-'AQs: Lead.
Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.hlml.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
254
-------
SPECIAL
POPULATIONS
ISSUE 3:
TRIBES
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste on Tribal Lands
Cancer Incidence by Race
Human Health Risk for Releases and Managed Waste on and off Tribal Reservations
Gila River Indian Community Pesticide Indicators
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Environmental Quality Indicators
Number of Active and Closed Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands
Number of Confirmed Releases from Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands
Number of Emergency Responses from Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands
Number of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Initiated and Completed on Tribal Lands
Open Dump Sites on Tribal Lands
-------
SPECIAL POPULATIONS ISSUE 3:
TRIBES
Project Overview and Background
During 1997 and 1998, The Florida Center for Public Management (FCPM) of the Institute
of Science and Public Affairs (ISPA) at The Florida State University conducted, in
cooperation with the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). a project known as the State and Tribal Air and Radiation
Planning Project (STARPP). The purpose of this project was to meet with state air agencies
and tribes in the 10 EPA regional offices and discuss a range of new planning and
management tools and opportunities available to states and tribes in their relationship with
EPA. During these meetings, over 70 representatives from 60 different tribes attended 9 workshops in regions where
tribal participation was relevant. At eight of these workshops, tribes and states met together for a full day and participated
in joint discussions regarding the issues central to STARPP. Additionally, a half-day or full-day meeting was held at
each location specifically for tribes. In Region 8 (Denver), a full two-day meeting was held and the agenda broadened to
include an expanded range of planning and management topics.
The discussions at the tribal portions of each of the nine workshops spilled over the set agenda and a wide range of issues
related to tribal environmental planning and the tribal management of EPA programs were engaged. One of the clear
themes to emerge from these workshops was tribal difficulties in acquiring and using environmental data that could be
used to support tribal measurement systems. STARPP concluded, "It is not surprising that tribal participants identified
the lack of environmental data as a serious impediment to planning and managing their air programs. Without good
environmental data, important planning activities, such as goal setting, progress measurement, and program evaluation,
cannot meaningfully take place. Tribes strongly urged the development of programs to expand traditional data collection
useful to tribes or the development of alternative mechanisms to collect useful tribal environmental data." (Bergquist).
Since these workshops, the role of measurement in national environmental planning has expanded. National planning
initiatives such as the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) have laid the foundation for improving planning and management of environmental programs
by focusing attention on environmental results, elevating the importance of planning, and highlighting the need for
meaningful stakeholder participation and positive intergovernmental relationships. For both programs, accountability
through measurable goals and objectives, and program metrics is absolutely central. A strong planning system is
fundamental in keeping attention focused on important goals and concerns. Higher demands for closer intergovernmental
cooperation, greater legislative scrutiny, demands for more public accountability, and tighter, more competitive budgets
have compelled states and tribes to improve their management systems, particularly planning. Fundamental to the
functioning of effective planning programs is the ability to measure mission-based results. Without such measurement,
strategic goals cannot be set, accomplishments cannot be documented, and programs cannot be adaptively managed.
EPA has now taken the step of developing a State of the Environment Report and is identifying a set of indicators that
will be used for that document. Further, EPA is now in the preliminary process of designing a Tribal State of the
Environment Report to be made available sometime next year.
CAPRM and WISE
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OS WER), both of USEPA, have separately engaged the Institute of Science and Public Affairs of The Florida
State University in cooperative agreements to assist stakeholders in developing indicator systems. These two projects.
257 Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures (CAPRM) for OPPTS and Waste Indicator System for the Environment (WISE)
for OSWER, both begin with strong direction to include tribal indicators as a major component of the broader indicator
development process. An early decision was made to effectively combine the tribal portion of both projects. This was
done for several reasons. First, the tribal membership on each of the larger TAWs would have represented a relatively
small number, and the total amount of tribal representation would have been slight. By combining the two groups and
having them work cooperatively on both projects, the number of tribal participants could be concentrated and the level of
participation expanded. Second, a workgroup composed completely of tribes could devote more time to tribal issues. If
tribal TAW members had remained as part of the larger project's TAWs, the amount of time and energy that could have
focused on tribes would have been small. Third, the two project TAWs would have little expertise or interest in tribal
concerns. Combining the two projects for tribal purposes has magnified the ability to focus resources and expertise on
tribal indicators. Tribal environmental indicator development is presently in an exploratory mode, searching for known
tribal indicator systems and for data sets capable of supporting tribally relevant environmental indicators for chemical,
pesticide, and waste issues. The name for this joint project is the Tribal Environmental Indicators System (TRE1S).
Current work elements include bibliographic research, research to locate existing tribal indicator systems, research on the
appropriateness of existing environmental data sets for use in tribal settings, discussions with tribal environmental experts,
focused meetings with tribalrepresentatives, and the development and publication of a small set of preliminary tribal
indicators.
Over the past year CAPRM has held three major meetings with tribes to discuss tribal indicators relating to chemicals,
pesticides, and waste, to identify key environmental issues for tribes, and to gather information regarding data that can be
used to support indicators. Based on that input, CAPRM staff has conducted a preliminary search for potential indicators
useful to tribes. The results of that work is summarized in the document.
The work accomplished in STARPP. CAPRM, and WISE presents a preliminary picture regarding tribal environmental
indicators. Several conclusions can be made:
1. Indicator Quality Data Available to Tribes is Limited Compared to Nontribal Governmental
Organizations. The nonurban character of tribes, their general remoteness, and relatively small, scattered
populations served to keep them out of the path of monitoring systems and other data collection systems.
Further, since much national environmental data is collected by states, tribes may not be included.
Additionally, since tribal populations are often relatively small, sampled data-bases cannot include tribal
results because the tribal resolution is too small. Sometimes tribes are just not considered, and
2. Formal Work on Developing Tribal Environmental Indicator Systems is Virtually Nonexistent. Individual
studies or reports may provide graphs of certain data sets, but the development of a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators is, with scant exception, not in evidence. As a result, there are few examples for tribes to
use to build their own systems.
CAPRM I Project Purpose
The broad purpose of CAPRM II is to identify key environmental issues and sub-issues relating to chemicals and pesticides
and to identify and develop indicators that best measure those issues and sub-issues. The target audience for these indicators
is relatively diffuse. States, tribes, nonprofits, the private sector, and the public at large all should have an interest in the
indicators in CAPRM and their specific uses could vary widely. The tribal portion of this project has a somewhat different
focus and is, obviously, considerably more focused. Several distinct purposes for the tribal portion of CAPRM can be
identified:
1. Support Tribal Capacity to Develop their Own Indicator Systems for their Own Uses. The broader
CAPRM indicators can be used by stakeholders to support any number of purposes. The tribal portion of
CAPRM is directed toward identifying data sets that tribes can use to develop their own indicator systems
relating to chemicals, pesticides, and waste. While uses at the regional and national levels are possible and
useful, tribal level information supporting tribal uses is the focal point.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
258
-------
2. Perform an Exploratory Examination as a Foundation for Future Work. While some environmental
indicators for tribes have been developed and used, work on an explicit system of tribal indicators is
virtually nonexistent. A major purpose of this project is to build a system of indicators capable of measuring
all of the key dimensions of chemical and pesticide issues as they relate to tribes. However, given the lack
of preceding work on tribal environmental indicators and the limited resources available, CAPRM has
treated the investigation of tribal indicators as preliminary and exploratory. Effort has been focused on
ibundational concerns, such as beginning to identify the key issues and sub-issues to relating to chemicals
and pesticides in the tribal context, identifying data sets capable of supporting appropriate indicators at
the national and the tribal level, and preparing sample indicators to serve as illustrations or models. The
expansion of the system to its full capacity needs to be left to the future.
3. Focus on National Data Sets. With over 600 tribes spread across most of the states, a full examination of
all of the opportunities for data that could support tribal indicators at some level is a daunting task requiring
resources well beyond the current project's limited capacity. Consequently, choices had to be made. The
decision was made to focus initial research on the potential of common national level data sets capable, at
minimum, of describing tribal environmental conditions at the national level, and, in the best case, allowing
the measurement of environmental trends at the individual tribal level.
Tribal Concerns with CAPRM
CAPRM staff conducted three meetings with tribal representatives. One 4-hour focus group meeting was held in
Denver, Colorado on February 24, 2002 with a group of approximately 20 tribal representatives, a 11/2 meeting
was held in Tahlequah, Okalahoma on August 15, 2002, with the CAPRM Technical Advisory Group (TAW),
and a 11/2 day meeting was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico on November 21, 2002, with tribal TAW members
and members of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). During those meetings, a number of concerns
were expressed. They are:
1. Limited Scope of the Project. The TAW was near unanimous in its dislike of the limitation of the project
to only chemical, pesticide, and waste issues. They strongly expressed the notion that all environmental
concerns are inextricably linked and that issues relating to human and ecological health, air quality, water
quality, and natural resources as well as chemical, pesticide, and waste issues, could not be disassociated.
Only with great reluctance did they accept the structural and funding limitations of the project.
2. Merging CAPRM and WISE. While taking on the full range of environmental issues was not possible
within the current version of TREIS, the tribal TAW was insistent the pesticides and chemicals not be
treated separately from waste issues. For that reason, the TAWs for each project were combined into a
single TREIS TAW, and the deliberations jointly focused on the issues associated with both projects.
3. Insuring that TREIS Reflects the Tribal World-View and Environmental Priorities. Tribal members
of the TAW wanted TREIS to reflect the way tribes conceive of environmental issues. Further, they
asserted that tribal priorities for the environment might be considerably different than nontribal priorities
and that prospective indicators should reflect that difference. The tribal issue structure should project
tribal environmental concerns as tribes perceive them, and the selection and content of the indicators
should conform to that perception.
4. Inclusion of Tribally-Specific Indicators. While generally accepting the focus on examining national
data sets for tribal applicability, the tribal TAW wanted to provide a few examples of tribally-specific
indicators as models for replication.
5. Inclusion of Cultural Indicators. TAW members strongly supported the eventual inclusion of cultural
indicators - indicators that support a unique tribal cultural value related to the environment or that measure
a standard environmental issue that is expressed in cultural terms. While this is a broad and very
259
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
underdeveloped area, the TAW wanted the value of these indicators to be recognized and included in the
discussion for the future of tribal indicators.
6. Inclusion of Program Capacity Indicators. While the focus of TREIS is to develop indicators that reflect
environmental conditions, the TAW members argued for the inclusion of some management related indicators.
They wanted a series of program indicators capable of measuring the current capacity of tribes to deal with
their programs to meet tribal environmental needs.
7. Process Concerns. The TAW also identified are series of concerns they believed seriously reduced their
capacity to produce indicators. They are the:
a. the lack of appropriate and adequate risk assessment information;
b. the inadequacy of current ecosystem research, particularly on tribal lands; and
c. the need for improved interagency coordination.
Data Opportunities for Tribal Indicators.
While the current focus in TREIS is the examination of national level data sets, it is likely that the full development
of tribal indicator systems cannot rely upon national level sources of environmental data. Tribes may need to
become creative in developing other sources of environmental data to support indicator development that meets
their specific needs. The range of tribal environmental indicators opportunities might include:
1. Standard Data Sets. While many data sets commonly used across the nation are totally inapplicable in
reservation settings, there are some data sets that can have direct or approximate application to tribal settings.
The Toxic Release Inventory and the closely associated Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Project,
are plainly such data sources. RCRA, Superfund, Enviro Mapper, and the American Indian Lands
Environmental Support Program (AILESP) should be of service. The Baseline Assessment being conducted
by the American Indian Environmental Office (A1EO) is a potentially rich source of indicator data. Other
data sets should be examined for application to reservation or tribal settings.
2. State and Local Data Sets. While some states may not commonly work closely with some tribes or conduct
environmental monitoring on reservations, they may conduct such activities near enough to reservations to
provide useful information. The review of state-owned data may provide environmental information capable
of supporting tribal data needs.
3. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Programs. EPA's Office of Research and Development is
developing and supporting regional ecological assessment projects in a variety of locations (Chesapeake
Bay, Great Lakes, the mid-Atlantic states, the 12 most western states, the San Francisco Bay and Joachin
River River Delta) that will yield solid ecological indicators. While some of these sites will have no significance
to reservations, others might. Such projects have or will have a wealth of location-specific data that should
be assessed for their ability to provide high quality ecological indicator data on or near tribal areas. For
projects in development, the possibility of placing some of the monitoring on or near reservations should be
considered.
4. Permit Data. The federal government and states requires the holders of permits to provide monitoring data
in support of the maintenance of their permits. At the national or state scale, such information is too
inconsistent and too voluminous to use in environmental monitoring. Such monitoring information is
generally useless for indicator purposes. At the tribal scale, however, monitoring information from some
kinds of permitted facilities could be quite useful and, perhaps, not too difficult or expensive to collect.
5. Specialized Tribal Data Sources. There may be some sorts of information available through Indian support
organizations that can assist individual tribes with environmental information. The Indian Health Service,
for example, may have data of use in portraying environmental health issues on reservations. Similarly,
there may be tribally collected data systems unique to individual reservations that can yield good results.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
260
»-!;;iil*78;t:!
-------
6. Tribal Scale Modeling. Many indicators arc produced, not from direct data collection or monitoring, but
from modeling activities. Modeling schemes might be developed on tribal scales that could allow individual
tribes to produce their own environmental estimates.
7. Regional Impact. For some issues like deposition, regional information might be fully appropriate. Air
deposition information might be a good example of this type of data. Such issues should be identified,
along with appropriate measures for use by tribes.
8. Tribewatch. In Florida, there is an effective program for monitoring lake water quality that is dependent
on volunteers. With over 7,800 lakes, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection can monitor
water quality in only a few of them. However, using a network of lake residents who periodically collect
a sample of water from their lake and send it to a common analysis point, a much greater number of lakes
can be assessed and monitored. A similar approach could be used with tribes. A cooperative program
with EPA regional offices or with state or regional governments could provide improvements in the data
capabilities of both the tribe and their cooperalor.
9. Tribal Environmental Data Self-Collection. The collection of much environmental data is scientifically
exacting and expensive, requiring expensive equipment or access to laboratory resources. For most
tribes, the development and maintenance of such data collection capabilities is not practical, and if data
from agencies outside the reservation are not available, tribes have little access to data. Opportunities to
develop simplified, less scientifically exacting, and cheaper measurement methods for tribes that will
produce acceptable, if somewhat less sensitive, environmental measurements. For example, dipstick tests
for many water constituents have been developed. The development of such a dipstick to roughly measure
water quality or the general availability of certain chemical constituents or substances, could provide
useful information where no other reasonable alternative exists.
10. Community Collected Data. Some types of data collection activities could be conducted as part of tribal
community activities. On specific reservations, groups within the tribe could "adopt an indicator" and
collect information. Biodiversity, plant and animal population surveys, exotics surveys, water quality,
and flows and levels data are a few examples of data that, with minimal training, could be collected. An
example of this type of activity is the Frog Listening Network staffed by volunteers in the Hillsborough
River basin in Florida. In this program, community volunteers received training in distinguishing between
the sounds made by different species of frogs. They then go to listening posts on a periodic basis and
count the number of different frog calls they hear and their frequency, within a specified period of time.
The information is compiled into a database and used to support an indicator of environmental quality
the number and diversity of frogs in the Hillsborough River basin.
1 I. Environmental Education. Many tribes have extensive training programs to teach and maintain cultural
information regarding tribes and the natural environment. Such activities could be expanded and adapted
to make data collection concerning important tribal natural resources a part of the program.
I 2. Culturally Specific Indicators. Tribes could also include measurements of tribally important environmental
concerns in their indicator systems that would not reflect broader, standard environmental concerns.
There may be important plant, animal, or mineral resources of special tribal significance that individual
tribes would want to include in their indicator systems. It is also possible that tribes may wish to express
their environmental concerns in a non-standard manner that would require different types of indicators
than are commonly employed. The indicator systems being developed by the Ministry of the Environment
in New Zealand to provide culturally specific parallel indicators for the Maori, might serve as a good
example of the types of indicators that might be developed by tribes.
261
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Tribal Environmental Issues Related to Chemical, Pesticides, and Waste
Considerable energy at the three tribal meetings held as part of CAPRM and WISE focused upon identifying, from
a tribal perspective, what the key chemical, pesticide, and waste issues are. These issues serve as the primary
structure directing the selection of indicators to be developed. That issue structure is not yet finalized, and
probably will not be until it can be incorporated into a fully integrated tribal environmental indicator issue structure.
Below is found the consolidated presentation of the issue identification work completed by the TAW at the
Tahlequah and Albuquerque meetings:
Joint Issues of Both CAPRM and WISE:
1. Legacy Pollution Issues
2. Homeland Security
3. Ecosystem Impacts
4. International Transport of Chemicals and Pesticide
CAPRM Environmental Issues:
1. Pesticides
a. Agricultural Pesticide Runoff
b. Spray Drift of Pesticides onto Non-Target Areas
c. Impacts of Indoor Exposures
d. Impacts of Pesticides on Ecosystem Values (Habitat, Species Diversification)
e. Storage of Pesticides on Tribal Lands
f. Impacts on Traditional Foods
g. Transport of Pesticides Through Tribal Lands
h. Pesticide Impacts on Ground Water
i. Future Impacts on the Environment
2. Chemicals
a. Lead and Other Metals
b. Toxics
c. Inadequacy of Information About the Health Effects of Untested Chemicals
d. Indoor Chemical Pollution
e. Future Impacts on the Environment
f. Ground Water Impacts
g. Impacts of Traditional Food (Bioaccumulation in Fish and Wildlife)
WISE Environmental Issues:
1. Waste Generation
2. Waste Management
a. Waste Minimization
b. Waste Reduction
c. Disposal of Waste
d. Disposal of Common Household Hazardous Wastes
3. Sludge Management
4. Release/Discharges/ Emissions from Waste Management Facilities
5. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
6. Water Well Contamination
7. Polluted Sites
a. Superfund
b. RCRA Sites
c. Brownfields
d. Abandoned Industrial Complexes and Sites
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
262
-------
8. Mining Impacts
9. Emergency Preparedness
Management Issues:
1. Problems Running EPA Programs on Tribal Lands
2. Development of Tribal Regulatory Programs
3. Differences Between EPA and Tribes in Overall Management Philosophies
4. Maintaining Compliance with Tribal Law
Responding fully to this list of issues is well beyond the scope and capacity of the current project. This list is
important, however, in setting the framework, and it may become useful when work is begun on the prospective
Tribal State of the Environment Report.
Sample Tribal Indicators
On the following pages are a group of sample tribal indicators reflecting chemical, pesticides, and waste issues.
This is not a definitive set of indicators. They are examples of the kinds of indicators that can be produced for
inclusion in a full indicator system. Included are some examples of national level indicators, as well as some
tribal level indicators.
References
Bergquist, Gilbert, et. al., Air and Radiation Planning in an Era of Change: A State and Tribal Perspective, Final
Report, State and Tribal Air and Radiation Project, Florida Center for Public Management, The Florida State
University, December, 1998, pg. 5-7.
Harris, Stuart, and Harper, Barbara, Environmental Justice in Indian Country: Using Equity Assessments to
Evaluate Impacts to Trust Resources, Watersheds and Eco-Cultural Landscapes, Unpublished Paper.
263
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
smssssssassa
-------
TRIBES
Human/
Kcological
Health Risk
r\crions by
Regulated
Cornmunitv
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level?
j
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEA
TYPED
TVPEC
Indicator: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
The Arctic region is the unique home to numerous exotic
wildlife and untouched landforms. Unfortunately, the impacts
of human progress have begun to affect the pristine Arctic
environment. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program
(AMAP) was formed in 1991 "to provide reliable and sufficient
information on the status of, and threats to, the Arctic
environment, and to provide scientific advice on actions to be
taken in order to support Arctic governments in their efforts to
take remedial and preventive actions relating to contaminants"
(AMAP website, 2002). To achieve this goal, AMAP has been
challenged to "measure the levels, and assess the effects of
anthropogenic pollutants in all compartments of the Arctic
environment, including humans; document trends of pollution;
document sources and pathways of pollutants; examine the
impact of pollution on Arctic flora and fauna, especially those
used by indigenous people; report on the state of the Arctic
environment; and give advice to Ministers on priority actions
needed to improve the Arctic condition" (AMAP website, 2002).
To begin the research efforts, AMAP had to establish one
agreeable definition of the Arctic. Various peoples, nations, and
governments inhabit the lands collectively known as the Arctic
region, and each holds their own distinct definition of the Arctic.
Thus, AMAP combined several definitional interpretations of
the Arctic to established one agreeable definition for study
purposes. The research area is to include the terrestrial and
marine areas north of the Arctic Circle (66°32'N), and north of
62°N in Asia and 60°N in North America, modified to include
the marine areas north of the Aleutian chain, Hudson Bay, and
parts of the North Atlantic Ocean including the Labrador Sea
(AMAP website, 2002).
At this time, AMAP has already started/completed numerous
research studies that have documented environmental conditions
in the Arctic over time. The content of several of these studies
is directly related to body burden/intake of chemicals and
pesticides to indigenous people in the Arctic. On the AMAP
website, the following indicators are listed to
Geometric mean levels of HCB, DDE, and PCBs in cord
blood of newborns in different Canadian population groups
Distribution (in percentiles) of whole blood mercury
concentrations in four regions in Greenland and in
Greenlanders living in Denmark
Distribution (in percentile) of whole blood lead
concentrations in four regions in Greenland and in
Greenlanders living in Denmark
Distribution (in percentile) of whole blood cadmium
concentrations in four regions in Greenland and in
Greenlanders living in Denmark
Distribution (in percentile) of whole blood selenium
concentrations in four regions in Greenland and in
Greenlanders living in Denmark
Nickel levels in urine from pregnant and delivering women
in different areas of Russia and Norway
Nickel levels in urine from newborn children in different
areas of Russia and Norway
Organochlorine intake from traditional food consumed by
indigenous women in Canadian Arctic
Time trends of mean methylmercury concentrations
Mean maternal plasma lipid concentrations of DDE and
DDT; figures below the graph show the DDE/DDT ratios
PCB congener profiles in cord blood of Canadian and
Greenlandic population groups, and in cord and maternal
blood from Greenland
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
264
-------
However, because of extenuating circumstances, the raw data
contained in these reports was not available to this research team
at the time of publishing and therefore accurate result graphs
cannot be provided.
Sources: Arctic Mofiit
-------
Level 3
TRIBES
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
.xrr?»
Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
l 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
J
Outputs
J
TYPEA
TYPED
TYPEC
Indicator: Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste on Tribal Lands
Information on a federal chemical monitoring program can be
used as an indicator of (he state of public monitoring efforts in
general.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TR1) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicities of the individual chemicals. These toxicities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release. To redress this
limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. The
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating a toxicity score for each chemical.
The toxicity score is multiplied by the pounds of chemical
released or managed in waste; the toxicity of each chemical
release and waste stream can be aggregated to provide an
estimate of the total toxicity of releases and managed waste for a
given year.
TRI data pertaining to releases and managed waste on tribal
lands is of particular interest in light of the EPA report.
Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk for all Communities.
This 1992 document found low-income communities and people
of color to be at a level of risk of exposure to toxic pollutants
disproportionate to that experienced by the general public. In
order to alleviate such environmental inequities, on tribal lands,
it is important to ascertain existing trends in pollution and waste
management in these areas. TRI data can be used as an indicator
of trends in these areas.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unit-less
measure of toxicity. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of toxicity
over time. For this indicator, the toxicity of releases and
managed waste was adjusted to create an index. It is
conventional to present unit-less data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the estimate of toxicity of releases and managed
waste for the baseline year was adjusted to equal a value of 100;
subsequent estimates reflect changes from that baseline of 100.
If industries are maintaining or improving pollution efficiencies
or succeeding at pollution prevention, then the index should
display constant or declining trends.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
toxicity of releases into the environment and managed chemical
waste. It can be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in pollution prevention and improving
pollution efficiencies.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
Currently, only a single year of data is available. In future years,
this will provide the baseline for standard TRI indicators and
will provide a much more complete and accurate reflection of
the scope and impact of releases into the environment and
managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of chemicals
that have been reported every year since the inception of TRI in
1988; however, the chart reflects data beginning in 1992, which
is when recycling, energy recovery and treatment operations
were incorporated into TRI. The second chart reflects data for
an enhanced list of chemicals that have been reported every year
from 1995 to 1999.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
266
-------
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste on
Tribal Lands (Core Chemicals List)
1988-1999
Other
POTWs
D TroHmeni
fcncr«>R60%) of the
toxicity index for the core chemicals list on tribal lands
between 1988 and 1999,
An increasingly large percentage (from -10% in 1988
to ~40% in 1999) of the core chemical component of
the toxicity index was managed through recycling.
Toxicity Index for Releases and Managed Waste on
Tribal Lands (Enhanced Chemicals List)
1995-1999
lllhcr
POTWs
D Trcalmenl
B Raveling
Ditpottl
Dl nderomn
The toxicity of releases and managed waste on tribal
lands increased from 1995 to 1998.
Land release accounts for the majority of the toxicity
index for the enhanced chemicals list; however, its
share of the toxicity index decreased from 83% in 1995
to 57% in 1999 as a larger percentage of the toxicity
was recycled.
Toxicity of both the core list and enhanced list of
chemicals on tribal lands has been increasing but this
increased toxicity is generally being absorbed by
recycling rather than released to land.
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. Custom computer queries of
national summary data prepared in August. 2002.
INotes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Knvironmental Indicators (RShl) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The
RSKI incorporates toxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the mode! provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioriti/e chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting,
and community-based environmental protection. Using models with varying
assumptions, three risk indicators in addition to the chronic human health risk
index will eventually be available: 1) an acute human health risk index; 2) a
chronic ecological health risk index; and 3) an acute ecological health risk index.
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics- may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: releases (air, water, land,
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recovery-, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works [POTWs]).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air, discharges to bodies of water,
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
lo air are reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recover)': waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds arc not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998, non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 19')X, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining,
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
ha/ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
docs not require that facilities monitor their releases. Intimation techniques are
used where monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage. Another limitation is that there is an IX-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recognize that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
IJ rUBlIC AffAIRi
267
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References:
I99H Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
August 2000. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered
online from: U.S. EPA / NSCtP. Ann.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box
42419, Cincinnati. Oil 45242-2419. Fax: (513) 489-8695, Phone:
(800) 490-9198. This document may also be viewed and downloaded
at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tri98/.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators," Fact Shed. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1, 1999.
Toxic* Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Envimnmi-nlal indicators
Methodology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User °v Manual for EPA 's Rixk Screening Environmental Indicators Model:
Version 1.02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, November 15. 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other informalion relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators m ay be viewed or downloaded at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/env_mdA To obtain a copy of the model, please
contact: TSCA Assistance Information Service. (202) 554-1404. Tsca-
hotline(u cpa.gov).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
268
-------
TRIBES
PRKSSURK
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Cancer Incidence by Race
Cancer is a disease of increasing national concern. While the
development of cancer is likely multi-causal and interactive.
research linking some types of cancer with chemical exposures
has elicited a broad and significant regulatory response from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Cancer refers to a group of diseases in which cells continually
divide to produce new cells when they are not needed. Groups
of extra cells are called tumors, which can be either benign (not
cancer) or malignant (cancer). Cancer cells can spread to and
damage other parts of the body through the bloodstream or the
lymphatic system in a process called metastasis (National
Cancer Institute, 2002a).
Although the causes of cancer are not known, people with
certain conditions, such as a personal or family history of cancer,
have an increased risk of developing the disease. People who
use tobacco, drink alcohol, are overweight, have low physical
activity, or have a high fat diet are more likely to develop
cancer. Other risk factors for cancer include chemicals and other
substances, radiation, and hormone replacement therapy (NCI,
2002a).
The following chart shows trends in cancer incidence in the U.S.
by race, as reported by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results (SFHR) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics (NCI,
2002b).
From 1992 to 1999, cancer incidence rates per 100,000
people were highest for blacks and lowest for American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
Cancer Incidence Rates by Race, 1992-1999
All races
White
Black
" American Indiaa'Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
| I CM I
t
Note: The year refers to the year of diagnosis for cancer incidence and the year
of death for cancer mortality.
Source: National Cancer Institute (NCI). Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results (SEER) Incidence and U.S. Mortality Statistics, 2002,
http://seer.cancer.gov/canques/ (30 January 2003).
Scale: The presented data is at the national level. SKER Incidence and U.S.
Mortality Statistics data may also be viewed at the state level.
269
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data is collected from 11 population-
based cancer registries and three supplemental registries, which cover
approximately 26 percent of the U.S. population. The registries are Atlanta.
Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii. Iowa, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland.
Seattle-Puget Sound, Utah, Los Angeles. San Jose-Monterey, Alaska, Ari/ona,
and certain rural counties in Georgia. The population used in the SKKR study
may not be a complete representation of the general U.S. population due to the
fact that it tends to be somewhat more urban and has a larger proportion of
foreign-bom persons than the general population.
Most types of cancer are more frequently seen in older people and the U.S.
population has aged over the past 30 years, which means the country's age
distribution changes each year. Therefore, cancer incidence and mortality rates
are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard million population by 5-year age
groups !o eliminate the confounding effect of age when comparing rates from
year to year. An age-adjusted rate is a weighted average of the age-specific
rates, where the weights arc the proportions of persons in the corresponding age
groups of a standard million population.
Reporting delay and reporting error can temporarily produce downwardly biased
cancer incidence trends until corrections of annual data are made. Reporting
delay time refers to the time elapsed before a diagnosed cancer case is reported
to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Reporting error occurs when a reported
case must be deleted due to incorrect reporting (Clegg. Feuer. Midthune, Fay &
llankey. 2002).
References
American Cancer Society. (2001). Health information seekers. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http://www.eanccr.org.'.
Cleg*, 1..X., Keuer, K.J., Midthune, D.N., Fay, M.P. & Hankcy. B.K. (2002).
Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence
rates and trends. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 94(2tt),
1537-1545.
Krimsky, Sheldon. (2001). Hormone disrupters: A clue to understanding the
environmental causes of disease. Environment.
National Cancer Institute. (2002a>. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.cancer.gov/.
National Cancer Institute. (2002b). Surveillance, Epidemiology, ami End
Results tm-iJence and U.S. mortality statistics. 30 January 2003.
Available online at: http://secr.cancer.gov/canques/.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
270
-------
TRIBES
I luman/
Ecological
I Icalth Risk
Discharges/
KmisMons
Leve~f3
Level 4
_Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
^1
Regulatory Actic)
Responses
"Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPE A
TiTEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Human Health Risk for Releases and Managed Waste on and off
Tribal Reservations
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) process
allows the highly flexible manipulation of TRI data to go beyond
just reporting pounds of releases to estimating the toxicilies
associated with those releases and estimating the associated
health risks. RSEI can be used as the first step in evaluating
potential risk-related impacts industrial releases and management
of toxic chemicals.
This screening level tool can be used to produce a variety of
indicators of use to tribes. Tribes can use RSEI's CIS mapping
capabilities to manually select facilities on and around tribal
lands to examine estimated health risk for releases and managed
waste in a given geographical area. Tribes can develop measures
to assess their own efforts in managing industrial facilities
located on tribal land. Furthermore, tribes can also assess how
much of their potential health risk solely comes from industrial
facilities off of tribal lands. Additionally, several other
refinements are possible that allow tribes to assess toxic release
related issues of specific concern to a tribe.
The ideal measurement of the human health impacts of chemical
releases would involve indicators capable of causally linking
toxic exposure to specific health impacts in a valid and reliable
manner. However, science is not yet ready or able to confirm
such relationships. In the absence of such indicators, fallback
measures are employed, which include: bioassay or body burden
analysis for known or suspected harmful chemicals, measures of
ambient concentrations of harmful chemicals, and measures of
the releases of chemicals into the environment.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TR1) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TR1 data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicilies of the individual chemicals.
These toxicities vary such that the many possible combinations
of less toxic chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide
range of toxicity represented by a given volume of release. To
redress this limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics developed the Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators. The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand
the application of the TR1 by incorporating data that, for each
chemical, reflects the toxicity, models the fate, and estimates the
si/e and distribution of the receptor population. By incorporating
these data with the TRI, the chronic human health risk posed by
a carcinogenic chemical release or waste stream can be
cslimated.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators program produces an unanchored or unitless measure
of health risk. These measures can only be interpreted relatively:
to display trends and to make comparisons of health risk over
time. For this indicator, the chronic health risk measures were
adjusted to create a chronic health risk index. It is conventional
10 present unitless data intended for temporal comparisons as an
index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For this indicator, the
chronic health risk estimate for the baseline year was adjusted to
equal a value of 100; subsequent estimates less than or greater
than 100 indicate a decrease or increase in the chronic health risk
posed by carcinogenic chemical releases and wastes,
respectively. In a broad sense, this indicator reflects whether
human populations in the U.S. are at a higher or lower risk of
adverse health effects from carcinogenic chemicals than they
were in previous years.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which tribal
members are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of
the total health risk of the entire tribal population. It can be
inferred, however, as a measure of the relative gains the U.S. is
making in reducing the chronic health risk posed by toxic
chemicals.
271
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing lime constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the baseline
for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much more
complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact of
releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Custom computer queries
of national summary data prepared by the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August. 2(XK).
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform the public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEF) expands the potential use
of the TRI by introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The
RSEI incorporates toxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-relaled
perspective tor relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related
targeting, and community-based environmental protection. Using models with
varying assumptions, three risk indicators in addition to the chronic human
health risk index will eventually be available: 1) an acute human health risk
index; 2) a chronic ecological health risk index: and 3) an acute ecological
health risk index.
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: releases (air, water, land.
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works [POTWs]).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which
chemicals enter the ambient environment is through their release to air, water
and land from facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to
the environment. This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies of
water, and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells.
Releases to air are reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery: energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic
chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
time employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds arc not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998, non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining,
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
emissions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
does not require that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are
used where monitoring data arc not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy
and coverage. Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recognize thai release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. 1-astly, TRI data
can he beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
272
I^TITl'Tf i» M tt
-------
References:
1998 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention ami Toxics,
November 2000. Printed copies are also available and may be
ordered online from: U.S. KPA / NSCKK. Altn.: Publication Orders,
P.O. Box 42419. Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419. l-ax: (51.1) 4X9-XfW.S.
Phone: (800)490-9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/triinter/tridata/lriyK/pdr/index.hlm.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators." Fact Sheet. Office of Pollution
Prevention und Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1. 1999
Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Knvironmenltd lniliftiloi\
Methi>d»los>\: U.S. Hnvimnmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June 1997.
User's Manual for EPA 'v Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model:
Version 1.02, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. November 15. 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Indicators, as
well as other information relating to Risk Screening Indicators ma> be viewed or
downloaded at http://www.cpa.gov/oppiinir/rsci/. 31 January 2(X)3. To obtain a
copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information Service. (2021
554-1404.Tsca-hollinc@epa.gov.)
273
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/
Emissions
Level3
TRIBES
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
I^evel 7
I
Level 1
Outputs
I
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Gila River Indian Community Pesticide Indicators
This indicator is provided courtesy of the Gila River Indian
Community and is an excellent example of an individual tribe
collecting and displaying important environmental information
not otherwise available from other sources.
The aerial application of pesticides is an important issue in areas
of large scale farming. The possibility for pesticides to drift into
adjacent areas puts at risk other crops, water quality, wildlife
health, and human health. Risk is reduced by application of less
volume as well as less toxic material."
These indicators measure the total number of applications per
year, as well as the toxicity of those applications. Toxicity is
approximated by using three signal word classifications used in
pesticide labeling. A signal word is included on the product
label for all farm chemicals. The three signal words arc
CAUTION (slightly toxic or relatively non-toxic), WARNING
{moderately toxic), and DANGER (highly toxic). Since the
formulations of active ingredients can vary among products,
there are instances in which an active ingredient may have more
than one signal word. This indicator measures agricultural
pesticide usage by pesticide product signal word. This indicator
does not explicitly consider the risk to human or environmental
health posed by each of the pesticides used. However, because
these signal words are derived from the acute toxicity
classifications of each active ingredient, they can be inferred to
be proxy measures of the toxicity of pesticides applied.
Both charts show rapid progress in reducing the overall
toxicity of the pesticide mix, and reducing the total
number of pesticides applications.
While all three signal word types declined at a similar
proportionality, the Danger category declined from
approximately 1280 applications in 1995 to slightly
over 200 applications in 2000, about an 85% decline.
Increases in applications rose in 2001 due to substantial
increases in farming acreages. Decline in loxicity is
due to the use of plant growth regulators and insect
growth regulators as opposed to using traditional broad
spectrum insecticides which tend to be more toxic.
Aerial Applications by Toxicity & Volume
1400
1200
CA
§1000
3
B. 800
S-
£ 400
z 200 -
0
1995 1996 1997
H Caution - least toxic
f "| Warning
1998
r
1999 2000
2001
H Danger - most toxic
Note: EPA Toricity Pesticide Ratings
Total Aerial Applications by Year
95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001
1995 -2001 Applications
Source: Environmental Accomplishments, Gila River Indian Community
Department of Km ironmcntal Quality. August 30, 2002.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
274
-------
PRESSURE
Discharges/
] Emissions
Level 3
TRIBES
I luman/
Kcological
[ Icalih Risk
Level 4 Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
WWflWUJMAMHMMj
Outputs
I
TYPE A
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Environmental Quality Indicators
This indicator is provided courtesy of the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe. It is an excellent example of a tribe collecting scientific
information to support indicators that relate to a specific health
issue and additionally reflects an important historical and
cultural concern for the tribe. The following text is provided by
the tribe.
Background
The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a Federally Recognized
Tribal Confederation with approximately 40,000 enrolled
members. The Tribe is comprised of six autonomous
Reservations (Bands): Bois Forte, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage.
Leech Lake. Mille Lacs and White Earth. These six Reservations
occupy approximately 1.8 million acres, of which approximately
700,000 acres is lakes and 250,000 acres is wetlands. The 667
lakes and 702 stream miles arc located between 46° and 48°
north latitude, and 89.5° and 96° west longitude in the northern
portion of the State of Minnesota. All of these waters arc at, or
very near, the apex of three major North American watersheds.
the Great Lakes, the Hudson Bay, and the Mississippi River.
The hydrodynamics of this area is quite active in both a surface
and groundwater context. The geology ranges from exposed
Canadian Shield bedrock, to several hundred feet of glacial till
(sand, gravel, boulders, clay lenses) over the bedrock, with
terminal and lateral moraines readily apparent on the landscape.
The upland vegetation is dominated by coniferous and mixed
conifer/hardwood forests. The wetlands contain typical wetland
vegetation including trees, sedges, and wild rice. Many
thousands of Reservation acres arc wilderness or semi-
wilderness. Forestry dominates anthropogenic land uses, with
some hay, grain and livestock agriculture. The vast majority of
agricultural lands are located on the western half of White Fr.arth
Reservation, in an area of glacial lake deposits known as the Red
River valley.
An additional 15 million acres of lakes, streams and forests of
northern Minnesota arc Ceded Territories of the Chippewa.
Resource use rights, hunting, fishing and gathering, on these
lands and waters were reserved by the Tribe in several Treaties
with the United States Government.
Indicators
The primary environmental indicator used by the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe at this time is quantity of fish from Tribal
waters that may be safely consumed by the most at risk Tribal
members, women of childbearing age, lactating mothers, and
children. The major, widespread contaminants in Tribal waters
have been found to be mercury, and the congeners and toxic
breakdown products of DDT, PCBs, and Dioxin/Furans. Tissues
of the several most utilized fish species are screened, lake by
lake, as prioritized by fishing pressure. Screening for mercury is
done by analyzing muscle tissue from the lop predator species
Stizostedion vitretim (walleye), or the northern pike, Esox Indus.
The screening species for organic contaminants is done by
analy/ing liver tissue from the burbot (Lota lota), lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) muscle tissue, whitefish (Corcganus
clupi'afarmis) muscle tissue, or tulibec (Coregonus artedii)
muscle tissue. Other fish species are assessed in each water body
as indicated by the screening, with the intent of identifying fish
that arc safe to eat. An EP A approved quality assurance plan is
followed for all fish collection and analytical work. The analyses
arc done using method detection levels that arc relevant to risk
assessment at a Tribally designated, traditional fish consumption
level of 180 pounds per year (224 grams per day).
The analytical information collected is assessed for cumulative
cancer and non-cancer risks of the measured contaminants using
EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories: Volume 2, Risk Assessment and Fish
Consumption Limits (EP A 823B-OO-OO8). Lake specific,
multiple species fish consumption guides are prepared and made
available to Tribal fish consumers in an effort to promote
informed decision making for healthy food choices.
Rationale
The decision to use the most at risk individuals as environmental
indicators permits an environmental quality management model
that ultimately protects the entire population and offers the best
opportunity to minimize acute and chronic health impacts, and
costs associated with anthropogenically introduced
contaminants. Based on our current fish contaminant
information, the quantity of preferred species fish that may be
275
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
safely consumed by our most at risk citizens is limited to 5% or
less of the Tribally designated, Treaty protected quantity o f224
grams per day.
The Tribe is fully aware that efforts to minimize the impacts of
environmental contaminants goes well beyond the borders of
any jurisdiction. The persistent bio-accumulative toxic
contaminants (PBTs) impacting the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
have a regional, continental, and global depositional scale. The
United States' output reduction of these PBTs needs to continue.
Of equal importance, best available technologies must be
exported to, and utilized, by industrialized and developing
nations in order to reduce the global deposition of PBTs. This is
the only way, we believe, that our Treaty protected fish
consumption rights may ever again be fully exercised by our
most at risk, and arguably most important citizens, women and
children.
Source:
Pcrcell. John, "Minnesota Chippewa Tribe l-m irontnental Quality Indicators,
Unpublished paper. 2002.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
276
-------
TRIBES
PRKSSURE
Actions by
Regulated
Community
TVPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Active and Closed Underground Storage Tanks on
Tribal Lands
An underground storage tank system (UST) is a tank and any
underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10
percent of its combined volume underground (USEPA). The
federal UST regulations pertain solely to underground tanks and
piping that contain either petroleum or certain hazardous
substances. Under UST regulations, owners and operators of
USTs located on tribal lands must register with the EPA.
USTs can be of special concern to the environment and health of
Native Americans because petroleum or other ha/ardous
substances can leak into the soil and contaminate groundwater,
an important source for drinking water. Among other
enviromental and health risks associated with USTs is the
potential for fire and explosion. Through the mid-1980's, the
majority of USTs were constructed from bare steel, which
eventually corrodes and causes the contents of USTs to seep out.
Substandard installation or poor operating and maintenance
measures can also lead USTs to discharge their contents into the
environment.
Although federal regulations call for technical requirements to
install and operate new tanks, and to maintain and upgrade
existing tanks, releases of UST contents still present a problem.
Additional requirements for the correct operation of USTs
consist of release detection, corrosion protection for metal USTs
and piping, recordkeeping, release reporting, corrective action,
and financial responsibility. Principally, the goals of UST
regulations endeavor to prevent, identify, and clean up leaks and
spills.
A substantial number of tribes own and/or operate service
stations with underground storage tanks. There arc also
independently owned tanks located on tribal lands and within
the exterior boundaries of Reservations.
The number of active and closed USTs on Indian lands can
provide a way to measure the extent of their prevalence and their
trend overtime. Closed USTs are older tanks which have
minimized their threat to human health and the environment,
particularly groundwater. Closing of an UST involves removing
it from the ground or leaving it in the ground. Either way, the
tank must be drained and cleaned by removing all liquids,
dangerous vapor levels, and accumulated sludge. This is a very
dangerous process which must be carried out by a trained
professional. If an UST is left on the ground, it must be filled
with a safe, chemically inactive solid, such as sand.
The following chart reveals the cumulative number of active and
closed underground storage tanks on Native American lands.
From 1995 to 2001 the number of active USTs has
significantly declined, while the number of closed
USTs has continued to substantially increase.
Number of Active and Closed Underground
Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands, 1995 to 2001
277
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: Chart derived from Corrective Action Measures data as archived by the
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Scale: Data are comparable on a national level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The data on active underground storage
tanks does not include all petroleum tanks, it only includes the cumulative
number of active petroleum UST systems registered with the Stale and regulated
under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It does not
include exempt or deferred UST systems. The number of closed underground
storage tanks refers (o the cumulative number of Subtitle I federally regulated
petroleum UST systems that have been reported to the State as being closed
permanently, which are cither left in the ground or removed from the ground.
This measure does not include exempt or deferred UST systems, nor does it
include temporary closures (Corrective Action Measures). This data is based
primarily on registration forms from owners and operators who have to register
their tanks by law. Each EPA regional office is responsible for the data for their
respective region. Although the data arc collected cumulatively, the EPA allows
tribal regions to make ongoing corrections to their data to account for errors such
as overcounting. This will have a substantial effect on any given one year
analysis. For this reason, it is best to focus on the overall trend, over time.
References
E-rmil communication with Mr. William Lienesch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Corrective Action Measures, Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/ovcrview.hlm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6 Native American Office. State
of the Environment in Indian Country, 2(100. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/earth I r6/6xa/i ndianuiuntry2000.pdf
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
278
-------
TRIBES
PRESSURE
Discharges/
{".missions
Level 3
TYPES
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1
Level 2
Outputs
I
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Confirmed Releases from Underground Storage Tanks
on Tribal Lands
An underground storage tank system (UST) is a tank and any
underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10
percent of its combined volume underground (USEPA). The
federal UST regulations pertain solely to underground tanks and
piping that contain either petroleum or certain ha/ardous
substances. Under UST regulations, owners and operators of
USTs located on tribal lands must register with the EPA.
USTs can be of special concern to the environment and health of
Native Americans because petroleum or other hazardous
substances can leak into the soil and contaminate groundwatcr,
an important source for drinking water. Through the mid-
1980's, the majority of USTs were constructed from bare steel,
which eventually corrodes and causes the contents of USTs to
seep out. Substandard installation or poor operating and
maintenance measures can also lead USTs to discharge their
contents into the environment.
Although federal regulations call for technical requirements to
install and operate new tanks, and to maintain and upgrade
existing tanks, releases of UST contents still present a problem.
Additional requirements for the correct operation of USTs
consist of release detection, corrosion protection for metal USTs
and piping, recordkeeping, release reporting, corrective action,
and financial responsibility. Principally, the goals of UST
regulations endeavor to prevent, identify, and clean up leaks and
spills.
A substantial number of tribes own and/or operate service
stations with underground storage tanks. There arc also
independently owned tanks located on tribal lands and within
the exterior boundaries of Reservations.
The cumulative number of confirmed releases on tribal lands
from UST systems indicates the amount of incidents where an
UST owner or operator has identified a release from a Subtitle 1
(of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulated
petroleum UST system. All regulated tanks and piping must
have release detection so that leaks are discovered quickly
before contamination spreads from the UST site.
EPAs federal underground storage tank (UST) regulations
require that contaminated UST sites must be cleaned up to
restore and protect groundwatcr resources and create a safe
environment for those who live or work around these sites.
Petroleum releases can contain contaminants like MTBE and
other pollutants of concern that can make water unsafe or
unpleasant to drink. Releases can also result in fire and
explosion hazards, as well as produce long-term health effects.
The following chart reveals the cumulative number of confirmed
releases from underground storage tanks on tribal lands.
The cumulative number of confirmed releases has
steadily increased from 1995 to 2001.
The greatest increase in confirmed releases occurred
between 1996 and 1997, which was 134 more
confirmed releases than the year before, while in year
2000, 1136 confirmed releases were reported.
Number of Confirmed Releases from
Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal Lands,
1995 to 2001
MlHIl
"S »oo
279
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: In 2000. a slight drop on the number of confirmed releases from USTs
occurred due to corrections made by the (ribal regions. See Dala Characteristics
and Limitations.
Source: Chart derived from Corrective Action Measures data as archived by the
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Scale: Data arc comparable on a national level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The number of confirmed releases is a
cumulative category, even as cleanup is initiated and completed, it is still counted
as a vxmfirmed release. A release which requires no further action as determined
by tte implementing agency would still be counted as a confirmed release.
Further, the number of confirmed releases refers to the cumulative number of
incidents and not UST systems, where the owner or operator of a Subtitle I
regulated petroleum UST reported the release to a regulating authority, who has
verified the release as dictated by state procedures, such as site visit, phone call.
follow-up letter, or by other means that confirmed the release. Although the
data are collected cumulatively, the EPA allows tribal regions to make ongoing
corrections to their data to account for errors such as overcounting. This will
have a substantial effect on any given one year analysis. For this reason, it is
best to focus on the overall trend, overtime.
References
E-mail communication with Mr. William Licnesch, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks. Corn-dive Action Meastires
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/swerust I /overview.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region d .\ali\e American Office State
of the Environment in Indian Country, 2000. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/earth I r6/6xa/in
-------
Level 3
Level 4
Level S
Outcomes
Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
I Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Emergency Responses from Underground Storage
Tanks on Tribal Lands
An underground storage tank system (UST) is a tank and any
underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10
percent of its combined volume underground (USEPA). The
federal UST regulations pertain solely to underground tanks and
piping that contain either petroleum or certain hazardous
substances. Under UST regulations, owners and operators of
USTs located on tribal lands must register with the EPA.
USTs can be of special concern to the environment and health of
Native Americans because petroleum or other hazardous
substances can leak into the soil and contaminate groundwatcr.
an important source for drinking water. Among other
cnviromcntal and health risks associated with USTs is the
potential for fire and explosion. Through the mid-1980's, the
majority of USTs were constructed from bare steel, which
eventually corrodes and causes the contents of USTs to seep out.
Substandard installation or poor operating and maintenance
measures can also lead USTs to discharge their contents into the
environment.
The number of emergency responses as applied to this indicator,
refers to the cumulative number of sites where an immediate
action was taken by the implementing agency in order to
mitigate imminent threats to human health and the environment
caused by an UST system release. Emergency response actions
can range from venting of explosive vapors to providing bottled
water. If petroleum contamination is discovered during an
emergency response, the site is considered to be both a
confirmed release and an emergency response. Once a
confirmed release is established, cleanup is initiated.
Although federal regulations call for technical requirements to
install and operate new tanks, and to maintain and upgrade
existing tanks, releases of UST contents still present a problem.
Additional requirements for the correct operation of USTs
consist of release detection, corrosion protection for metal USTs
and piping, recordkceping, release reporting, corrective action.
and financial responsibility. Principally, the goals of UST
regulations endeavor to prevent, identify, and clean up leaks and
spills.
A substantial number of tribes own and/or operate service
stations with underground storage tanks. There are also
independently owned tanks located on tribal lands and within
the exterior boundaries of Reservations.
The number of emergency responses on tribal lands can provide
a way to measure the extent of their prevalence and the trend
overtime of actions taken to decrease the threats that are posed
by UST systems.
The following chart illustrates the cumulative number of
emergency responses from underground storage tanks on tribal
lands, from 1995 to 2001:
The cumulative number of emergency responses has
steadily increased from 1995 to 2001.
Number of Emergency Responses on Tribal Lands,
1995 to 2001
2001
281
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: In 1999, the number of emergency responses on tribal lands decreased
due to corrections made to the data by the tribal regions. See Data
Characteristics and Limitations.
Source: Chart derived i'rom Corrective Action Measures data as archived by the
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Scale: Data arc comparable on a national level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data on the number of emergency
responses is a cumulative category. Emergency responses are not included as
cleanups initiated or cleanups completed unless unless activities listed under
those categories have occurred (Corrective Action Measures). The number of
emergency responses only account for those UST systems that are regulated by
the EPA and that reported an emergency response. Although the data arc
collected cumulatively, the HPA allows tribal regions to make ongoing
corrections to their data to account for errors such as overcounting. This will
have a substantial efrect on any given one year analysis. For this reason, it is
best to focus on the overall trend, overtime.
References
E-mail communication with Mr. William Licncsch, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks. Corrective Action Measures
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov.'swerustl/overview.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Nali\e American Office . State
of the Environment in Indian Country. 2000. Available online at:
http:/;'www. cpa.gcv/carthlr6/6xa/indi aneountry2000.pdf
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
282
-------
TRIBES
PRESSURK
Level3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TYPE A
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Number of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Initiated and
Completed on Tribal Lands
An underground storage tank system (UST) is a tank and any
underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10
percent of its combined volume underground (USEPA). The
federal UST regulations pertain solely to underground tanks and
piping that contain either petroleum or certain hazardous
substances. Under UST regulations, owners and operators of
USTs located on tribal lands must register with the EPA.
USTs can be of special concern to the environment and the
health of Native Americans because petroleum or other
hazardous substances can leak into the soil and contaminate
groundwater, an important source for drinking water. Among
other enviromental and health risks associated with USTs is the
potential for fire and explosion. Through the mid-1980's. the
majority of USTs were constructed from bare steel, which
eventually corrodes and causes the contents of USTs to seep out.
Substandard installation or poor operating and maintenance
measures can also lead USTs to discharge their contents into the
environment.
Although federal regulations call for technical requirements to
install and operate new tanks, and to maintain and upgrade
existing tanks, releases of UST contents still present a problem.
Additional requirements for the correct operation of USTs
consist of release detection, corrosion protection for metal USTs
and piping, recordkceping, release reporting, corrective action.
and financial responsibility. Principally, the goals of UST
regulations endeavor to prevent, identify, and clean up leaks and
spills.
A substantial number of tribes own and/or operate sendee
stations with underground storage tanks. There are also
independently owned tanks located on tribal lands and within
the exterior boundaries of Reservations.
Contaminated UST sites differ significantly. Some extremely
contaminated sites where groundwater resources have been
greatly harmed, may require years of cleanup activities that can
cost over $ million. Other sites may contain little or no
groundwater contamination, allowing cleanup contractors to
restore the site more rapidly and at less cost. The number of
UST cleanups initiated and completed can provide a way to
measure the level at which such corrective actions have been
necessary for federally regulated USTs on tribal lands.
The following chart reveals the cumulative number of
underground storage tank cleanups initiated and completed on
tribal lands.
* From 1995 to 2001 the number of cleanups initiated
and completed have both increased.
Number of Underground Storage Tank
Cleanups Initiated and Completed on Tribal
Lands, 1995 to 2001
|W5 19% IW7 1«w«
2000 2001
283
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures 11
-------
.Notes: In 1997. the number of cleanups initiated on tribal lands decreased due to
corrections made to the data by the tribal regions. See Data Characteristics and
Limitations.
Source: Chart derived from Corrective Action Measures data as archived by the
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Scale: Data are comparable on a national level.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The data on UST cleanups initiated and
completed does not include all petroleum tanks, it only includes the cumulative
number of petroleum UST systems registered with the State and regulated under
Subtit c 1 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; whercthe slate or
state designated authority has initiated management of petroleum contaminated
soil, removal of free product from the the surface or subsurface environment,
management or treatment of dissolved petroleum contamination, or monitoring of
the groundwater or soil being remediated by natural attenuation. Site
investigations and emergency responses do not qualify unless one of the
activities noted above has occurred (Corrective Action Measures Data). It does
not include exempt or deferred l,'ST systems. Each EPA regional office is
responsible for the data from their respective region. Although the data are
collected cumulatively, the F.PA allows tribal regions to make ongoing
corrections to their data to account for errors such as ovcrcounting. This will
have i. substantial effect on any given one year analysis. For this reason, it is
best to focus on the overall trend, overtime.
References
E-mail communication with Mr. William Lienesch. U.S. Knvironmcntal
Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks. Corret'tive Action Mvasurex.
Available online at: http://www.cpa.gov swenistl oven icw.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6 Native American Office . Stale
of the Bvironmenl in Mian (.'ountryZOOO . Available online at:
http://www .epa.gov/carthlr6/6xa/indiancountry2000.pdf
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
284
-------
PRESSURK
Discharges/
Hmtssions
Level 3
Level 4
TRIBES
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6 Level 7 Level 1 Level 2
[ Outputs I
TWEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Open Dump Sites on Tribal Lands
In 1994, Congress enacted The Indian Lands Open Dump
Cleanup Act. According to the Act, an open dump is any
facility or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a
sanitary landfill and which is not a facility for the disposal of
hazardous waste (TASWER, 2002). This Act was the result of
numerous studies that demonstrated the negative effects that
open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaskan Native
lands have on the health and safety of residents of those lands
and contiguous areas. These negative effects include risk of fire,
injury to children playing on or around the dump site, disease
carried by mosquitos and rodents, soil and water contamination,
and a decrease in surrounding land values (Illinois EPA, 2002).
The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps
on tribal lands, assess the relative health and environmental
hazards posed by those sites, and provide financial and technical
assistance to tribal governments to close the dumps (Indian
Health Service, 1998).
Under the provisions of the Act, the Director of the Indian
Health Service (IHS) is assigned responsibility for the
development of an inventory of all open dump sites on Indian
lands. The results of this ongoing process arc the annual
Reports on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands.
This indicator measures the number of open dump sites
identified on tribal lands in 1997 and 1998. The year to year
changes in this indicator reflect a decrease in the total number of
sites coupled with increases resulting from the inclusion of
newly identified sites.
The number of open dumps on Indian lands decreased
5% between 1997 and 1998.
The considerable increase of open dump sites after
1996 is attributed to an emphasis on including sites
smaller than '/> acres in size, as well as efforts by Tribes
to identify open dump sites not previously accounted
for.
Open Dump Sites on Tribal Lands, 1996 to 1998
7. dumpl.html
285
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM
INITIATIVES
-------
LIST OF INITIATIVES
Product Stewardship
Pollution Prevention
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM
INITIATIVE
ISSUE 1:
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
Industry Disposal of Pesticide Containers
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Design for the Environment Program
Volume of Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Recovered by Clean Sweep Programs
-------
^ROSS-PROGRAM INITIATIVE ISSUE 1
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
An important concept that supports the goal of source reduction is product stewardship,
which takes a product-oriented view of protecting the environment. Stewardship calls upon
all parties within the lifecycle to participate in reducing environmental effects. At the heart
of this model is the producer, since this represents the greatest opportunity for reducing
these effects. Through waste minimization and reduction of the toxicity of manufacturing
processes, as well as recycling programs, businesses can effectively become stewards of the
environment. Additionally, retailers, consumers, and governments are increasingly
contributing to the model through purchasing choices and stakeholder participation with
waste managers.
Industry is increasingly taking responsibility for the environmental quality and impacts of its products. This may include
taking steps to ensure that products are safe to use. or may take a more long-term perspective by integrating concepts such
as health, safety, and environmental protection into the life-cycle of products. This life-cycle analysis includes the
manufacture, marketing, distribution, use, recycling, and disposal of particular products.
Product stewardship, however, goes beyond the manufacturer. Retailers have an important role to play. By choosing
products with high stewardship value to sell, they can direct consumers to products with relatively high environmental
value and emphasize those products in the marketplace. Consumers also have a key role. By choosing products with high
stewardship value, they can direct the market to support such products.
EPA is actively working with a variety of industries to improve and support stewardship activities. Such industries include
producers of tires, carpet, packaging materials, building materials, electronics, vehicles, batteries, and products containing
mercury.
The measurement of life-cycle stewardship for indicator purposes is not well-developed and is presently tied to specific
efforts by individual companies to better manage their products. The voluntary, nonregulatory nature of product stewardship
as well as the lack of a central program to manage activities and collect data currently limits indicator development. As
momentum develops for stewardship and cooperative governmental and private programs expand, the potential for effective
indicator development may increase.
References
U.S.. EPA, Perspectives from the Pharmaceutical Industry and Examples of Corporate Stewardship Programs, http://
www.epa.gov/nerlesd l/chemistry/ppcp/relevant.htm#Pcrspective
U.S. EPA, Product Stewardship, http://www.epa.gov/cpaoswer/non-hw/reduce/epr/about/index.html
291
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
-------
PRESSURE
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
Indicator: Industry Disposal of Pesticide Containers
Industry is increasingly taking responsibility for the
environmental quality and impacts of its products. These efforts
often referred to as product stewardship or extended product
responsibility (EPR), call on those involved in the product life
cycle manufactures, retailers, users, and disposers to share
responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of
products. Common activities of these industries include reducing
the use of toxic substances, designing for reuse and
recyclability, and takeback programs (U.S. EPA 2001).
An example of a program that provides an opportunity for
companies to become better product stewards is the Agricultural
Container Research Council's (ACRC), pesticide container
recycling program. The ACRC is a non-profit organization that
promotes and supports collection and recycling of high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) plastic crop protection and other pesticide
product containers. The fundamental purpose of ACRC is the
collection of used pesticide plastic containers and their removal
as a potential source of environmental contamination. Pesticide
containers are obtained from agricultural and professional end-
users only.
This program represents an important opportunity to measure
industry based product stewardship activities. The removal of
pesticide containers from agricultural operations prevents the
possibility of their inadvertent release to the environment. This
reduces the risks these chemicals pose to human and ecological
health. In addition to the recycling of pesticide containers the
ACRC also sponsors research programs to develop end uses for
cleaned, recycled pesticide containers to further implement
product stewardship efforts.
The following chart shows the amount of pesticide containers
recycled between 1989 and 2001. An increasing trend in the
number of pounds of pesticide containers recycled indicates an
increase in industry based product stewardship.
7,008,000 million pounds of HDPE were recycled in
2001.
Industry Disposal
of Pesticide Containers,
1989-2001
8.000
7.000
9 6,000
£ 5,000
| 4,000
u
> 3,01X1
e 3.0i)0 1 1
rfl i
'°: _ a a DI u [
.
e=
L
1
e=?
_
r
c-n
«=
n
1989 1990 1991 199: 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Years
Source: Agricultural Container Research Council, 2001
Scale: National
Data Characteristics and Limitations: Data arc analyzed and reported
annually. Currently the ACRC is supported by twenty-seven full member
companies and six affiliate members. Participation in the ACRC is voluntary.
The ACRC contracts with two firms for collection and chipping/granulation of
containers returned to state sites. Other pesticide product containers collected by
the ACRC include EPA registered products including agricultural, turf, forestry,
vegetative management, specialty pest control (excluding consumer packages).
as well as adjuvants, crop oils, and surfactants.
References
Agricultural Container Research Council. 2001. "Annual Container Collections
1989-2001". January 6,2003. Available online at:
http://www.acrecytle.org/collections.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Wasle. 2001. "What is
Product Stewardship?" January 6,2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/epr/about/index.html
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
292
-------
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
Level 3
Actions by
Regulated
Community
TYPE A
TYPEB
Level 4
LeveJS
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Level 1 _Level_2
Outputs I
Indicator: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Design for
the Environment Program
Information on programs that reduce the amount of toxic
chemicals used by industry, and influence the manner in which
toxics are used, can be developed into an indicator of pollution
source reduction efforts in general
The Design for the Environment (DfE) program is intended to
work with individual industry sectors to compare and improve
the performance and human health and environmental risks and
costs of existing and alternative products, processes, and
practices. DfE works through developing partnership projects to
promote integrating cleaner, cheaper, and smarter solutions into
everyday business practices. The program has been active in a
number of industries and has suggested improvements to reduce
the environmentally harmful effects of an array of processes.
Currently DfE maintains partnership programs with the
following industries: Automotive Refinishing, Adhesives,
Computer Display, Garment & Textile Care, Flexographic
Printing, Formulator. Gravure Printing, Industrial &
Institutional Laundry, Integrated Environmental Management
Systems, Lead-Free Solder, Lithographic Printing, Printed
Wiring Board, and Screen Printing. The partnerships work to
address a wide range of environmentally related issues in these
fields
EPA also supports using "benign by design" principles in the
design, manufacture, and use of chemicals and chemical
processes--a concept known as "green chemistry." EPA's Green
Chemistry Program promotes the research, development, and
implementation of innovative chemical technologies that
prevent pollution in both a scientifically sound and cost-
effective manner. In addition, EPA's emerging Green
Engineering Program strives to help acadernia introduce a
"green" philosophy into undergraduate chemical engineering
curricula. The DfE Program works with these and other related
programs such as the Green Engineering Program and the
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
Source: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Design for the
F.iivironiiKTil Program Website: http://www.epa.gov/opplintr/dfc/. December 6.
2002
Data Characteristics and Limitations: EPA DfK Programs are designs lor
improving the environmental performance of specific industries and this industry
specific nature makes evaluation of the effectiveness of the program as a whole
difficult.
293
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
Human/
Ecological
Health Risk
Level3
Level 4
Levels
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TYPE A
TYPED
Indicator: Volume of Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Recovered by Clean
Sweeps Programs
Clean Sweep programs are a loosely coordinated group of state-
managed programs that collect unused, unwanted or obsolete
agricultural pesticides, household pesticides and toxic
chemicals. Some programs recover only household wastes such
as unused automotive products, solvents, paints, household
cleaners, pesticides and other household chemicals. Other
programs accept pesticides and hazardous wastes from
agricultural producers and from small businesses. Once
collected by the Clean Sweep program, these hazardous
materials are characterized and disposed of properly.
These programs represent an important opportunity to measure
governmental and community stewardship activity. The
removal of large amounts of unused or obsolete hazardous
chemical substances from homes, farms and firms prevents the
possibility of their inadvertent release to the environment. This
reduces the risks these chemicals pose to human and ecological
health.
Participation in the Clean Sweep program is patchy within and
across states. In total, forty states have some level of
participation. Twenty-one states have continuous programs with
permanent funding while another eight states have continuous
programs with non-permanent funding. Another twelve states
have intermittent programs, five states have held a single
collection event, and four states have never administered a Clean
Sweep program.
As mentioned earlier, the types of activities conducted by each
program are inconsistent. Programs collect different kinds of
materials and have varying schemes for counting and
characterizing what they collect. Currently, data on Clean
Sweep programs are not collected or reported on an annual
basis.
As a result of these limitations, an indicator cannot be presently
developed that tracks the performance of Clean Sweep
programs. The EPA, however, is attempting to identify and
develop some Clean Sweep data parameters that may eventually
allow the development of such an indicator.
The table on the following page summarizes the preliminary
Clean Sweep data that have been collected to date.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
294
EaSS
-------
National Clean Sweep Program Profile
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa"
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana *
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan ^
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri 3
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey 4
New Mexico
New York 3
North Carolina^
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Category
Intermittent
Never
Never
Once 1
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Once
Intermittent '
Continuous
Intermittent
Permanent
Intermittent ^
Continuous
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent (sunset 5
yrs)
Intermittent
Permanent
Intermittent
Permanent
Once
Continuous
Never
Intermittent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Never
Initial Year
1994
NA
NA
1992
1989
1995
1990
1992
1995
1995
1987
1993
1990
1990
1986;
Permanent in 1991
1995;
Permanent in 1 999
1991;
Permanent in 1995
1992
1982;
Continuous in 1 996
1995
1990;
Continuous in 1998
1990
1989
1994
1990
1994
1995
1995
1990
1989
NA
1993
1980
1992
1993
NA
Universal
Waste?
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (for 2001)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Adopted
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
No
Adopted, not yet
authorized
Yes
Yes
Adopted, not yet
authorized
Yes
Pounds
Collected in
the 1980s
0
0
0
5,000
87,820
0
0
0
0
0
17,471
0
0
0
No data available
0
0
0
86,000
0
0
0
32,396
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,535
0
0
200,000
0
0
0
Total Pounds
Collected
189,393
0
0
5,000
1,186,828
68,665
46,100
30,423
89,400
778,032
17,471
310.689
252316
60,069
909,154
237,455
256,084
408,200
116,987
86,990
147,115
710,000
1,902,686
839,727
8,900
179,186
1,336,033
47,564
20,000
371,450
0
217,906
1,094,517
1,029.230
1,088,713
0
295
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Oregon
Pennsylvania "
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
Continuous
Permanent
Once
Intermittent '
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Intermittent
Permanent
Once
1991;
Continuous in 1997
1993
1990
1988
1993
1998
1992
1993
1991;
Permanent in 1996
1990;
Permanent in 1992
1988
1994
1990
1992
Yes
Yes
No
Adopted, not yet
authorized
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
No for pesticides
Yes
Yes
Adopted, not yet
authorized
0
0
0
6,743
0
0
0
0
0
0
84,555
0
0
0
530,520
178,367
920,189
Unknown
7,100
231,403
300,000
3,149,820
118,616
65,953
737,448
1,008,289
239,430
1,269,995
16,000
22,284,893
Notes:
1 Arkansas and Florida are working lo establish programs in 2001. South Carolina is also actively trying to start a program.
2 Illinois hopes to hold at least 1 to 3 collections on an annual basis.
3 These profiles (Louisiana. Michigan, Missouri and New York) have not yet been reviewed by a state contact.
4 The New Jersey information is from household waste collections and includes agricultural and household pesticides. There arc some data that still need (o
be added
to ihis total.
5 For North Carolina, the 1980s amount is an estimale, based on the information EPA holds: 3IX,711 pounds were collected "pre-1992."
6 Iowa and Pennsylvania's totals are through 1999; there is a good possibility that the current totals are over 1 million pounds.
Source:
Summary Sheet, Provided by Nancy hit/. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. U. S. hnvironmcnta) Protection Agency, 703-305-7385.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
296
-------
CROSS PROGRAM
INITIATIVE ISSUE 2:
POLLUTION PREVENTION
-------
LIST OF INDICATORS
RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated, by Volume and Type
RCRA Hazardous Waste Managed, by Volume and Method of Management
TRI Pollution Prevention Measures
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA) Pollution Prevention
Metrics Menu
Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Generated as Non-Product Output in New Jersey
Trends in Use of Toxic Chemicals in Massachusetts After Institution of the
Toxics Use Reduction Act
Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxin Use in Massachusetts
Responsible Care Measures
Dow Chemical Company's Efforts as an Example of Pollution Prevention
Dupont Chemical Company's Efforts as an Example of Pollution Prevention
Dry Cleaning Industry Perchloroethylene Decline
Toxicity of Releases and Managed Waste per Dollar of Economic Output Index
Toxicity Per Pound Index for Releases and Managed Waste
Volume of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated per Dollar of U.S.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM INITIATIVE ISSUE 2:
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution prevention was established as national policy in the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990. Pollution prevention describes a philosophy that is thoroughly integrated into the
organizational culture of environmental agencies, an important agency policy to which all
programs must be responsive, and an explicit set of programs designed to meet identifiable
pollution prevention objectives. At its core is the idea that the prevention of pollution from
occurring at all is the most effective pollution related strategy. The most fundamental
form of pollution prevention is source reduction, which is the reduction of generated
pollution. The objective of pollution prevention programs is to reduce or eliminate the
need to control, treat, dispose and cleanup pollutants, and to alleviate the negative health
and quality of life consequences of pollution. Effective pollution prevention strategies and
programs will reduce the short- and long-term stresses on the environment. P2 is a
fundamental building block of a sustainable society. Three core issues were identified.
Issue Dimensions
Waste
Waste is an unavoidable by-product of daily life. While it is impossible to eliminate the generation of waste entirely, it is
important that attention be paid to the type of waste that is generated, as some types of waste pose more environmental
risks than others. By definilion. hazardous waste poses the most environmental risks. According to the EPA, for waste to
be considered hazardous it must first be defined as solid waste (1997). Solid waste includes such discarded material as
garbage, refuse, and sludge (solids, semisolids, liquids, or contained gaseous materials). These types of waste are considered
hazardous only if they exhibit characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Other types of wastes may
be considered ha/ardous if they are specifically listed as such by the EPA. In 1997, the EPA estimated that more than 2%
of the 13 billion tons of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and household wastes were defined as hazardous by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was passed in 1976. The primary goals of this act are to protect human
health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal; conserve energy and natural resources; reduce
the amount of waste generated; and ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner (1997). Pan of
the RCRA mandate is to establish the regulatory framework for "cradle-to-grave" management of hazardous wastes.
Source Reduction
According to the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, pollution prevention is the reduction or elimination of
pollution at the source. Pollution prevention occurs when raw materials and other substances are subtracted from the
production process. Source reduction allows for the greatest and quickest improvements in environmental protection by
avoiding the generation of waste and reducing its toxicity. This includes purchasing durable, long-lasting goods and
seeking products and packaging that are as free of toxics as possible. It ranges from creating less waste in production
processes to more efficient design of products to extend their use.
Recycling and Reuse
Recycling processes materials that are destined to be waste into valuable resources that can be used in new products.
This strategy, including composting, has been a very successful tool for conserving materials, diverting 64 million tons
of material away from landfills and incinerators in 1999, up from 34 million tons in 1990. Included in this subissue are
299
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
not only consumer products such as packaging, glass, newspaper, and other nondurables, but also industrial by-products.
used oil, and yard waste (composting). As greener technologies emerge and marketing of products made with recycled
materials increases, options for recycling will continue to expand. Reuse involves using a product multiple times for its
original intended use. The reuse of packaging materials or of toner cartridges for printers and copy machines would reflect
reuse.
Eeo-Efficiency
To some degree, the performance of the economy affects the demand for chemicals and can generate fluctuations
in energy and water use, the amount of materials used and the amount waste and pollution produced. Such fluctuations
may mask actual increases in environmental efficiencies by industry. Eco-efficiency measures standardize
environmental outcomes by establishing a ratio between energy use. water use. materials waste, and pollution, and
some measure of economic output. For example, these measures might permit industry, in periods when levels of
waste and pollution are rising only because of accelerated economic growth, to show that they are maintaining or
improving their waste or pollution-related efficiencies. Situations could also arise in which lower levels of waste
and pollution reflect economic stagnation or recession and mask pollution inefficiencies. By standardizing progress,
eco-efficiency measures facilitate a more accurate assessment.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
300
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
WASTE
KFFECTS
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
I
HtHlv f lumati/
Burden/ H^ [',ci >logic:il
Iptakc I Health Risk
Level 4
Lc-vet 5
Outcomes
cl6
TYFEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator; RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated, by Volume and Type
Hazardous waste is any waste that is ignitable, corrosive,
reactive or contains certain amounts of toxic chemicals.
Because the improper management of hazardous waste creates
significant risks for the environment and human health, it is
regulated "cradle-to-grave" by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA is a set of laws and
standards for the production, storage, treatment and disposal of
hazardous wastes.
liven with proper storage and treatment, there is always the
potential for accidents that could result in: ground water
contamination, releases of toxic chemicals, or environmental
transport of toxic vapors or liquid wastes. To minimize the risk
of these hazards, the KPA has set a goal to reduce the quantity of
hazardous waste generated in the U.S.
This indicator tracks the progress toward that goal. It monitors
the volume of RCRA hazardous waste generated, as reported
through the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). Due to a change
in the BRS (see notes below chart), future data will be
comparable only from 1997 onward.
The volume of hazardous waste generated decreased
considerably from 1991 to 1995: from 306 million tons
to 214 million tons.
From 1995 to 1999, there was a slight increase in the
volume of hazardous waste generated, from 36 million
tons to 40 million tons.
The EPA is also committed to reducing the toxicity of waste
generated. The second chart shows the categorization of
hazardous waste generated from 1991 to 1999. For the purpose
of comparing relative toxicity, a waste that is both characteristic
and listed (see notes for definition) is inferred to be more toxic
than waste that is only characteristic or listed.
* From 1991 to 1999, the percentage of characteristic
waste generated decreased (72% to 52%).
From 1991 to 1999, the generation of listed waste
increased significantly (8% to 18%).
From 1991 to 1999, the generation of waste that is both
characteristic and listed has also increased substantially
(19% to 29%).
Tons of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated
1991-1999
Percentage of RCRA Hazardous Waste
Generated by Category, 1991-1999
301
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Notes: In 1997, the scope of information collected for reporting by the Biennial
Report changed. The new reports exclude data on all aqueous wastes managed in
treatment systems regulated by the Clean Water Act. This information had been
included in the 1991-1995 reports. The only type of wastewaters for which the
new system collects and reports data are those managed by
deep\vell/underground injection.
Characteristic wastes refer to any solid waste that exhibits one or more of the
following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity or contains toxic
constituents in excess of Federal standards. Listed wastes refer to any waste that
the EPA has identified as hazardous as a result of investigations into particular
industries or because the EPA has specifically recognized a commercial chemical
waste's toxicity.
Source: US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. National
Hazardous Waste Reports for 1991 -1999
Scale: Data is collected and reported at the national and state levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The BRS is a national system that
collects data on the generation, management and reduction of hazardous waste.
Large quantity generators of hazardous waste are required to submit detailed
reports about the quantity and characteristics of hazardous waste generated. The
BRS also collects data on waste management practices from treatment, storage
and disposal facilities.
Data s reported in even years about hazardous wastes generated, managed and
disposed of the previous year. Data is reported at the state and national level.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report (1991-1999). 9 January 2003. Available online at
http://www.epa gov/epaoswer/hazwasle/data'
U.S. Environmental Projection Agency Strategic Plan. September 1997.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
302
-------
Discharges/
Kmissions
Level 3
POLLUTION PREVENTION
WASTE
Level 4
Level $
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
^^^^^m
Actions
Level 1
Outputs
TYPEB
TVPEC
Indicator: RCRA Hazardous Waste Managed, by Volume and Method of
Management
Hazardous waste is any waste that is ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, or contains certain amounts of toxic chemicals.
Ha7ardous wastes are regulated "cradlc-to-gravc" by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA
is a set of laws and standards for the production, storage,
treatment and disposal of ha/ardous wastes.
Management methods for hazardous wastes include: aqueous
treatment, land disposal, recycling/recovery, incineration and
miscellaneous methods (e.g., sludge treatment). Different types
of waste require different methods of treatment and disposal.
However, certain management methods pose greater risks to the
environment and human health than others. Improper land
disposal often results in groundwater contamination. The
incineration of ha/ardous wastes at combustion facilities can
result in the emission of dioxins and furans, which are persistent
organic pollutants (POPs).
To minimize the risk of these hazards, the EPA has set goals to
reduce the quantity of ha/ardous waste landfilled and
incinerated in the U.S. This indicator tracks the progress toward
those goals. The HPA is also committed to increasing the
recovery/recycling of hazardous wastes, which is also tracked
here. This indicator monitors the overall volume and the
percentage of RCRA hazardous waste managed by each method,
as reported by the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). Due to u
change in the BRS (see notes below chart), future data will be
comparable only from 1997 onward.
The first chart reports the total amount of RCRA waste managed
from 1991-1999 in millions of tons.
From 1991 to 1995, the volume of RCRA hazardous
waste managed decreased by 86 million tons.
Under the new reporting system, the volume of RCRA
hazardous waste managed increased by 3 million tons
from 1995 to 1997, and decreased by 12 million tons
from 1997 to 1999.
The second chart shows the percent of hazardous waste
managed by each method for the same time period (1991-1999).
From 1991 to 1995, there was an increase in the shares
of hazardous wastes managed by land disposal (from
8.6% to 12.3%) and incineration (from 0.6% to 2.1%).
From 1997 to 1999, there was a decrease in the share of
hazardous wastes managed by land disposal (from
76.2% to 69%), and an increase in incineration (from
4.4% to 11%) and other treatment (5.4% to 11%).
Other hazardous waste management treatment and
disposal practices include stabilization, and sludge
treatment.
Tons of RCRA Hazardous Waste Managed
1991-1999
303
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Percentage of RCRA Hazardous Waste
Managed, by Management Method, 1991-1999
Notes: in 1997. the scope of information collected tor reporting by the Biennial
Report changed. The new reports exclude data on all aqueous wastes managed in
treatment systems regulated by the Clean Water Act. This information had been
included in the 1991-1995 reports. The only type of wastewaters for which the
new system collects and reports data arc those managed by
deepwelI/underground injection. To facilitate the comparison of management
methods over time, aqueous treatments were excluded from the calculation of the
percentage of total waste managed.
Source: US HPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, National
Hazardous Waste Reports for 1991-1999
Scale: Data is collected and reported at the national and slate levels.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The BRS is a national system that
collects data on the generation, management and reduction of ha/ardous waste.
Large quantity generators of hazardous waste are required to submit detailed
reports about the quantity and characteristics of ha/ardous waste generated. The
BRS also collects data on waste management practices from treatment, storage
and disposal facilities.
Data is reported in even years about ha/ardous wastes generated, managed and
disposed of the previous year. Data is reported at the state and national level.
References
U.S. finvironmcntal Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Umergency
Response (OSWKR), National Biennial /«'KA Hazardmix Waste
Report (1991-1999). 9 January 2003. Available online at
http://www.cpa.gov/epaoswer/ha/waste/data;'
L'.S. Environmental Prolii'tian Agency Strategic Plan. September 1997.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
304
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
TYPEA
TYPEB
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
J
_Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: TRI Pollution Prevention Measures
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database thai identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations
and in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI
data are normally reported by volume of release or managed
waste of a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation
of this reporting system is that it does not account for the
relative loxicities of the individual chemicals. These toxicities
vary such that the many possible combinations of less toxic-
chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of
toxidty represented by a given volume of release. To redress
this limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the
application of the TRI by incorporating a toxicity score for each
chemical. The toxicily score is multiplied by the pounds of
chemical released or managed in waste: the toxicity of each
chemical release and waste stream can be aggregated to provide
an estimate of the total toxicity of releases and managed waste
for a given year.
The loxicily-refined TRI data can be used to evaluate the
success of governmental pollution prevention (P2) programs
and of private sector efforts to improve pollution related
efficiencies. There are two levels of pollution prevention at
which TRI data can be analyzed. The first level is to compare
how much pollution toxicity is released with how much is
managed in waste. In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,
release into the environment is identified as the least preferred
option for pollution management. Therefore, a favorable P2
trend for this indicator would be an increasingly greater
proportion of pollution toxicity managed in waste.
The second level of pollution prevention analysis can be
conducted in the managed waste component of the TRI. The
extent of pollution prevention in TRI waste management can be
discerned by comparing the amount of pollution toxicily
managed by each method. The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 established as national policy a hierarchy of waste
management options for situations where source reduction is
no! feasible. The hierarchy, from most to least preferred
method, is: recycling, energy recovery, treatment and disposal.
Therefore, a favorable P2 trend for this indicator would reflect
waste management occurring at the highest levels of the
hierarchy.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
toxicity of releases into the environment and managed chemical
waste. It can be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in pollution prevention and improving
pollution efficiencies.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unrcporled in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of pollution prevention in
the U.S.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first and third charts reflect data for a core list of
chemicals that have been reported every year since the inception
of TRI in 1988; however, the chart reflects data beginning in
1992, which is when recycling, energy recovery and treatment
operations were incorporated into TRI. The second and fourth
charts reflect data for an enhanced list of chemicals that have
been reported every year from 1995 to 1999.
The first and second charts show that, from 1992 to
2000, on average over 50% of the pollution toxicity
generated was managed in waste.
305
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
The third and fourth charts show thai, from 1992 to
2000, between 85-95% of toxicity in TRI waste was
managed by recycling. Treatment and energy recovery
were the next waste management methods most
frequently used.
Overall, the charts show a high level of pollution
prevention activity in the management of TRI
chemicals.
Proportion of Pollution Toxicity Released and
Managed in Waste (Core Chemicals List),
1992-2000
"w HIM
(2 711%
2 art
ii Iv> "<*<
!
| D I'uKiciEynf
s
!
:s:
1992 I9SCI 1S94 19i)5 1936 I9!)7 IMS 1999 HI
Year
I ***'
Proportion of Pollution Toxicity Released and
Managed in Waste (Enhanced Chemicals List),
19952000
I
mill
DTiniiil-, if
lOKXilVlll
1995 l«Ki
1998 l<
~ Wl%
H '"'*'
1 m<"
§ ,
u W*.
g :«!".
J5 a».x
10% -*
41' !n ^
oportion of Pollution Toxicity Managed by
Method (Core Chemicals List), 1992-2000
Tl
1
*i
?J
"i"!
1
$
si
%
p
1992
m
*HI
P
1
*
>?
i-i
1
^
*
*
1
994
-
P
J
*,-
2?
|
93.1!
-
^
\
"=s
i
*.
'/
-^1
R.
>'-.!
!?
99«
ea
-
>
j^'
V
yv
.^
s;
i
9
y
^_
!!9f
-
P
t
m
A,
-k-t
_i.
fXtf)
Olt«T
fii'onss
. i-.iwtK> Recovery
a KII vi s*g
r
Proportion of Pollution Toxicity Managed by
Method (Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
i
1
OllHT
l.rKTjjv Rtvo^fi
O Krrv ySlg
Year
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures 11
306
-------
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. Computer (|umes of
national summary data prepared January 2003.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can be viewed on the national level, as welt as
by ! PA regions, states, counties, cities, and /jp codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing ridi
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TR? is used in a number of ways to inform the public about chemical
contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental conditions. The
TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals released or transferred
and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts. The Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) expands the potential use of the TKI by
introducing two new dimensions: toxiciiy and health risk. The RSFI inc oqiorates
toxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical categories and also models the
fate and the potentially exposed population for releases (and some managed wastes).
The result is a screening-level, risk-related perspective for relative < omparisoris of
chemical releases and wastes. The flexibility of the model provides the opportunity
not only !o examine trends, but also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic
planning, risk-related targeting, and community-based environmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects from
toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator arc: releases (air. water, land.
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, riu-rgy
recovery, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works IK)'] Ws]).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter I he ambient environment is through their release to air. water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the environment.
This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies of water, and releases from
the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases to air are reported
either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks, evaporative loses from surface
impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems) or slack
emissions (releases from a confined air stream, such as stacks, vents, duels, or
pijX's). Releases to water include discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and
other wilier bodies, including contained sources such as industrial process outflow
pipes or open trenches. Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land
include disposal of toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill land
treatment application farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is
I he disposal of fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off site as waste. Waste
management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery and metals
recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of toxic chemicals
10 generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery: waste treatment (biolugic-al
treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical separation), which lesulis in
varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There arc1 several limitations of (he Toxics Release Inventor)". The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full lime
employees and those that do not meel the chemical thresholds are not required to file
reports. Prior to 1998. non-manufacturing sectors were not required lo re|M>r( As
of 1998, electric utilities, coal mining, melal mining, chemical wholesalers.
petroleum hulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and ha/ardous waste
Ireatjjienl, storage, and disposal are requited lo report. Toxic emissions from
auloniobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted for in the TRI.
Additionally, TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but does not require
that facilities monitor their releases, Estimation techniques are used where
monitoring data are not available. The use of different estimation inelhodoiogies
can cause release estimates to vary. Also, some facilities may not fully comply with
the reporting requirements, which can alTecl data accuracy and coverage Another
limitation is thai there is an 18-monlh delay from data collection lo current release
patterns ll is important to recogni/c that release patterns can change significantly
from year to year, so current facility activities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data can
be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone are not
sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening Knvironmental
Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and ecological health
risks.
References
2000 Toxics Keleast' Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, August
2000 Printed copies are also available and may be ordered online from:
U.S. EPA/NSCEP, Attn.: Publication Orders. P.O. Box 42419.
Cincinnati. OH 45242-2419. Fax: (513) 489-8695. Phone: (800) 490-
9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/triOO/index.htm.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators." Fact Sheei. Office' of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October
1. 1999.
Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-Based Fjivinnuneiilal Inilicntors
Metnixliilfiffy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June 1997.
L'xtT 's Manual for FI'A 's Kist Screening Environmental Imlh'ntors Model:
Version 1.02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. November 15. 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators are available on al: htlp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/. 31 January 2003.
To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information
Service. (202) 554 1404. Tsea hotline@epa.gov).
307
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures 11
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
Indicator: Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
(NEWMOA) Pollution Prevention Metrics Menu
While there are a number of state agencies, businesses, and
non-profit organizations that currently have indicators in place
to measure pollution prevention (P2) progress, such indicators
are not consistently measured. The lack of standardization in
data collection presents obstacles when comparatively
evaluating P2 programs, especially at the national level.
The Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
(NEWMOA) Pollution Prevention Metrics Menu represents a
joint effort between the Northeastern states P2 programs to
begin to overcome these obstacles. These states have joined
together to create a common multi-state indicator system to
measure pollution prevention efforts. The purpose of their
efforts is to provide a list of indicators that state programs
agree to use in order to facilitate interstate studies on pollution
prevention activities. A common indicator framework also
will provide a better understanding of actual outcomes of P2
efforts on a regional level.
The NEWMOA P2 Metrics Menu is categorized into three
main groups:
Assistance Activities - ex. On-site assistance,
workshops/conferences, grants to program clients,
partnership programs
Regulatory and Enforcement Activities -
Ex. Training, inspections, and enforcement actions
* Environmental and Economic Outcomes
No data are currently available as NEWMOA is in the process
of developing the software necessary to implement the
indicator system. The following is a list of indicators from the
NEWMOA P2 Metrics Menu that relate specifically to
chemicals and pesticides:
Metric #25: Number of business, institutional or
community clients that maintained purchasing and
use records for their chemical input inventories.
* Metric #32: Total amount of hazardous waste
reduced through pollution prevention by program
clients.
Metric #33: Number of hazardous waste generators
(LQGs) and small quantity generators (SQG).
Metric #35: Total amount of air pollutants reduced
through pollution prevention by program clients.
Metric #36: Total amount of water pollution
reduced through pollution prevention by program
clients.
Metric #37: Total amount of toxic/hazardous
chemical use reduced through pollution prevention.
Notes: The Northeastern states include: Connecticut. Maine. Massachusetts.
New Hampshire. New York. Rhode Island, and Vermont.
References
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association. 1999.
"Pollution Prevention Metrics Menu". Draft prepared by the
Northeast Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Available online:
htlp://w ww. newmoa.org 'Newmoa/htdocs/prevention/metrics
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
308
-------
I lutmn/
Kcological
I k-;ilth Risk
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Regulatory
TYEEA
TYPEB
Level 1
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Generated as Non-Product Output in
New Jersey
Information on a stale chemical monitoring program can be used
as an indicator of the state of public monitoring efforts in
general.
The Community Right to Know (CRTK) Program in New
Jersey's Bureau of Chemical Release Information and
Prevention collects, processes, and disseminates the chemical
inventory, environmental release and materials accounting data
required to be reported under the state Worker and Community
Right to Know Act. Information collected by the program can
be used to asses the threats chemicals pose, to track trends in
chemical use, to examine problems related to the presence of
toxic chemicals in products and to evaluate progress toward
goals of more efficient and reduced chemical use.
CRTK collects information from two sources Chemical
Inventory Data Surveys and Release and Pollution Prevention
Reports. Surveys, listing the environmental hazardous
substances present at facilities, are collected from a set of more
than 33,000 employers whose businesses are assigned one of the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes listed in the Right
to Know Act. Businesses with more than 500 pounds of
environmental hazardous substances or smaller quantities of
substances listed on the federal Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) 302 list of extremely
hazardous substances are required to complete surveys. Release
and Pollution Prevention Reports are filed by manufacturing and
select non-manufacturing companies that have the equivalent of
ten or more full-time employees and all firms using toxic
chemicals listed on the EPCRA 3I3 list in quantities exceeding
specified thresholds. Approximately 600 companies in New-
Jersey are required to complete federal Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory (TRI) forms and these companies are also required to
complete state Release and Pollution Prevention Reports.
One element monitored by CRTK, as part of its assessment of
chemical use in New Jersey, is the amount of chemicals in waste
generated before recycling, treatment, or disposal, an clement
known as nonproduct output (NPO).
Total weight of chemicals in NPO generally decreased,
between 1991 and 2000, at a rate of 5.8 million pounds
per year.
Non-Product Output, 1991-1999
Source: New Jersey Department of l-jivironmcnlal Protection Community Right
to Know Program Website, December 17, 2002.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: There are several limitations of CRTK
data as an indicator of pollution source reduction efforts in general. First, there
is no indication that the trends in the level of toxics in industrial products in New
Jersey are representative of the trends in the level of toxics in industrial products
in the U.S. Second, due to change in the list of rcportable chemicals, depictions
of trends can only include chemicals for which data was first collected. This
results in the exclusion of data on the levels of chemicals that are of particular
concern for health and environmental reasons.
References
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Community Right lo Know
Program Website. 17 December 2002.
Tracking Toxic Chemicals: The Value of Materials Accounting Data. Inform,
19«7.
309
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Discharges/
Emissions
Level3
Level 4
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
EFFECTS
Body
Burden/
1'ptaki:
Level S
Outcomes
Human/
Ecological
I lealth Risk
Level 6
Actions by
Regulated
Communin
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
I
Outputs
I
TVFEA
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Trends in Use of Toxic Chemicals in Massachusetts After
Institution of the Toxics Use Reduction Act
Information on programs that reduce the amount of toxic
chemicals used by industry, and influence the manner in which
toxics are used, can be developed into an indicator of pollution
source reduction efforts in general.
In the state of Massachusetts the Toxic Use Reduction Act
(TLRA) Program collects data on the use of toxics in all phases
of production from firms statewide. The program, which first
collected data in 1990, was initiated to encourage safer and
cleaner production by industries in the state.
The TURA program uses information reported by industry to
analyze trends in the use of toxics. Information used in this
indicator is reported by a group of 340 businesses (the Core
Group) that have been subject to reporting since 1990. During
this time period a number of chemicals have been added to and
deleted from the list of slightly less than 200 reposted substances
composed by the Administrative Council on Toxics Use
Reduction. However, the data on the use of toxics by the core
group is stabilized by reporting on only a select group of
chemicals for which data has been collected since 1990.
Facilities reporting use of these chemicals for the first time are
reported as members of the core group but data on newly
reported chemicals by any company is excluded from the core
group report.
Also reported by TURA are on-site releases and off-site
transfers of toxics as defined by the federal Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). TRI is a database that identifies annual
amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and in
accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data arc
normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of a
specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicities of the individual chemicals. These toxicities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release.
The graphs below illustrate the reductions in the total use of
toxic chemicals, the amount of toxics generated as byproduct.
the amount of toxics shipped as industrial product and the on-
sitc releases and transfers off-site as defined by the federal Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI), by the industries composing the Core
Group. All amounts of toxic chemicals are reported by weight
in millions of pounds.
Total Toxics Used by Core Group, 1990 to
2000
KOC1
"CHI
I
X
:oo|
loo
o-
I
I»HI 1001 I
-------
A 40% decrease in the weight of toxins produced as
byproduct was recorded.
Total weight of toxics shipped in product decreased
approximately 23% between 1990 and 2000.
TRI Oil-site Releases and Off-site Transfers by
Core Group, 1990 to 2000
Off-lite Transfers
On-site releases of toxic chemicals, as reported by the
TRI, declined 85% between 1990 and 2000.
* TRI reported transfers of chemicals off-site decreased
4% between 1990 and 2000.
Source: 2000 Toxics I'si- Reduction Information Release. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department olTinvironmcntal Protection. June 2002.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: There are a number of limitations of
TURA data as an indicator ot" pollution source reduction efforts in general. First.
there is no indication that the trends in the level of toxics in industrial products in
Massachusetts are representative of the trends in the level of toxics in industrial
products in the U.S. Second, data for the core group is constrained by report ing
on only a select group of chemicals rather than all listed toxics. This results in
the exclusion of data on the levels of PBTs that arc of particular concern for
health and environmental reasons. Third, industries and commercial operations
which use small amounts of chemicals on the list, including smaller
manufacturing facilities and most commercial operations (such as dry cleaners)
will not be included in the report. Fourth, industries and commercial operations
that claim quantity information as trade secret information are not required to
report. Fifth, companies that employ fewer than 10 employees are not required
to report toxic use data at all.
311
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Discharges/
Emissions
~ Level 3
TYPEA
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Rtsp< mscs
I
Level 1
TYPEB
Level 2
Outputs
I
TYPEC
Indicator: Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxin Use in Massachusetts
Information on a state chemical monitoring program can be used
as an indicator of the state of public monitoring efforts in
general.
In the state of Massachusetts the Toxic Use Reduction Act
(TURA) Program collects data on the use of toxics in all phases
of production from firms statewide. The program, which first
began analyzing industry reported data in 1990, was initiated to
encourage safer and cleaner production by industries in the state.
Beginning in 2000, in response to lower federal level reporting
thresholds, TURA began reporting lower quantity uses of the
group of chemicals classified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as "persistent bioaccumulative toxins"
(PBTs). This data is expected to become a permanent part of the
yearly data set and has potential to be used as an indicator of
trends in the use of PBTs in Massachusetts. The first year of
information on PBTs, using the new reporting standard, is
included here. PBTs are broken down into seven categories.
The table below illustrates the reporting threshold for each of the
PBT chemicals, the number of facilities that reported use of each
of the PBTs, the total use of PBTs, the amount of PBTs
generated as byproduct, the amount of PBTs shipped as product
and the on-site releases and transfers off-site as defined by the
federal Toxic Release Inventory (TR1). All amounts of toxic
chemicals are reported by weight in millions of pounds. It is
important to note that the PBT categories vary widely in toxicity
so relative harm posed by use and releases cannot be compared
using weight data alone.
PBT use was dominated by polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons of which 109,492,315 pounds were used.
PAC use was primarily reported by companies burning
fuel oil.
Shipping of PBTs in product, in 2000, ranged from
zero pounds of dioxin to 42,802 pounds of mercury.
The largest component of on-site releases was mercury
compounds, of which 294 pounds were released.
Mercury use and release was reported mainly by a
single company that recycles fluorescent light fixtures.
The majority of off-site transfers were of mercury
compounds and PCBs. The same single company that
reported the majority of mercury releases released 99%
of PCBs.
Source: 2000 Toxics Use Reduction Information Release, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, June 2002.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: First, there is no indication that the
trends in the level of toxics in industrial products in Massachusetts are
representative of the trends in the level of toxics in industrial products in the U.S.
Second, industries and commercial operations which use small amounts of
chemicals on the list, including smaller manufacturing facilities and most
commercial operations (such as dry cleaners) will not be included in the report.
Third, industries and commercial operations that claim quantity information as
trade secret information are not required to report. Fourth, companies that
employ fewer than 1I) employees are not required to report toxic use data at all.
Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (PACs)
Benzo (g,h,i-) perylene
Mercury
Mercury Compounds
PolycHorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Tetrabromobisphenol A
Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds
100
10
10
10
10
10
0
140
105
10
6
2
1
8
109,492,315
9,618,907
4,927
90.009
118,160
332
0.0266
7,000
70
737
46.901
118,116
315
0.0263
31,036
1.227
4,189
42,802
44
17
0.0000
59
5
3
294
0
0
0.0261
66,676
268
2,527
97,702
118,116
315
0.0004
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
312
-------
Level 3
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
i
Regulatory Acrions'
Responses
Community I
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
TYPES
TYPEC
Indicator: Responsible Care Measures
Information on programs that reduce the amount of toxic
chemicals used by industry, and influence the manner, in which
toxics arc used, can be used to ascertain the state of pollution
source reduction efforts in general.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is a chemical industry
group that represents those chemical companies in the United
States that produce roughly 90% of all the chemicals produced
in this country. Their stated mission is "Creating an
environment that fosters economic growth, continuous
environmental, health and safety improvement, and societal
advancement through the business of chemistry." (ACC website)
As part of developing their mission the ACC has initiated an
industry self-monitoring program called Responsible Care. The
Responsible Care program lists a number of guiding principles
including the following:
To provide chemicals that can be manufactured,
transported, used and disposed of safely.
To make health, safety, the environment and resource
conservation critical considerations for all new and
existing products and processes.
To provide information on health or environmental
risks and pursue protective measures for employees, the
public and other key stakeholders.
To work with customers, carriers, suppliers, distributors
and contractors to foster the safe use, transport and
disposal of chemicals.
To operate our facilities in a manner that protects the
environment and the health and safety of our employees
and the public.
To support education and research on the health, safety
and environmental effects of our products and
processes.
To lead in the development of responsible laws,
regulations and standards that safeguard the
community, workplace and environment.
In adherence to these principles the program collects an array of
data from ACC member companies to monitor chemical
releases, risk prevention efforts and production efficiency data.
So far such data has been reported only voluntarily, but
beginning in January 2003 the ACC will begin to require that all
member companies collect and report a specific set of
information. The required measures, which will reflect progress
towards environmental goals, are tentatively set to include the
following:
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting of air, land
and water releases per pound of production
The tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxides, HFC, RFC and SF6) emitted
per pound of production
Total BTUs consumed per pound of production
System is in place and publicly available for assessing
and re-assessing potential environmental, health and
safety risks for chemicals in commerce
Percentage of products re-evaluated per documented
environmental, health and safety assessment procedures
Percentage of commitments achieved on schedule for
chemical evaluation programs
Document process for characterizing and managing
product risk, and provide a summary of the process to
the public
Communicate results of the risk characterisation and
management process in an effort to facilitate public
knowledge.
313
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Once these measures are in place the data they produce could be
used to develop several indicators of toxic releases and
prevention by the chemical industry.
Source: American Chemistry Council website. 20 September 2002. Available
online at: http://www.americanchemistry.com
Notes: The FSU Program for Environmental Policy and Planning Systems would
like til thank Dell Perelman and David Clarke for their assistance in providing up
lo date information on the ACC's plans for further development of the
Responsible Care program.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: The ACC will begin collecting a full
set of responsible Care Program data from all member companies beginning in
January 2003. however, at this time all existing data has been collected on a
voluntary basis. When the full data set becomes available further limitations may
become apparent, but at this time the only obvious limitation is that all data will
be reported by the chemical industry to a chemical industry organization with
little outside oversight.
References
Perelman. Dell. Personal communication concerning plans for further
development of Responsible Care monitoring program. 7 August 2002.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures H
314
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
SOCIETAL RKSPONSE
Discharges/
I Emissions
Level 3
Level 4
Levels
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
Regulatory
Responses
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Dow Chemical Company's Efforts as an Example of Pollution
Prevention
Information on programs that reduce the amount of toxic
chemicals used by industry, and influence the manner in which
toxics are used, can be developed into an indicator of pollution
source reduction efforts in general.
As one of the nation's largest chemicals manufacturers, Dow
Chemical Company's practices are an example of how industry
can reduce environmental harm. Dow states in a company
publication that it is committed to "no harm to the environment.
to our people or to any people that we touch in the value chain".
In working toward realizing this commitment, Dow has joined
the American Chemical Council industry self-monitoring
program called Responsible Care. Responsible Care is a
voluntary initiative within the global chemical industry to safely
handle products from inception in the research laboratory,
through manufacture and distribution, to ultimate disposal, and
to involve the public in the decision-making processes. Dow
has also set a list of goals for the year 2005 which are aimed at
increasing corporate responsibility and accountability,
preventing environmental health and safety and incidents,
increasing resource productivity, and increasing business
accountability. The following metrics compiled by Dow
summarize company data on loss of primary containment,
number of incidents at customer facilities, chemical emissions,
priority chemical emissions, waste emissions and wastewater
emissions and give an idea of the corporation's progress toward
meeting its pollution prevention based goals.
Primary containment refers to the actual vessel,
package, tank or line that holds the material of concern.
Secondary containment may contain any leaks or spills.
Frequency of loss of primary containment incidents
generally declined by 52% from 1994 to 2002.
Loss of Primary Containment
N
\
l<»5 J9W IW7
W 2QK1 !(»{ 2002 20W 211)4 21X15
Year
The number of incidents at customer facilities increased
significantly between 1998 and 2002.
Dow attributes this increase to better reporting rather
than an increase in the number of incidents.
Incidents at Customer Facilities
- 150
E 100
ll
315
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Chemical emissions declined by approximately 42%
from 1994 to 2001.
Dow reduced the waste to production ratio by 18%
over the 1994-2001 time frame.
Chemical Emissions
80000 .
70000
1 60000
I
" 50000
1
g 40000
f
u
5 30000
B
(2 20000
10000 i
o
trained
Goal
i<»5 19% |I»T
1999 2000 2«)i am: 2003 2004 aos
Year
Priority Compounds include persistent, toxic and
bioaccumulative compounds (PTBs), known human
carcinogens, selected ozone depletors, and high volume
toxic compounds:
PTPs: Hexachlorobenzene, mercury compounds
Known Carcinogens: Benzene, Vinyl Chloride, Nickel
Compounds, Chromium Compounds, Arsenic
Compounds, Asbestos
Selected Ozone Depletors: Carbon tetrachloride,
1,1,1-trichlorocthane, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113,
CFC-114, CFC-115, CFC-123, CFC-500, CFC-502,
CFC-1301, H2402
High Volume Toxics: Propylene Oxide, 1,2
Dichloropropane, 1,2 Dichlorcthane (EDC), 1,3
Butadiene, Chloroform, Epichlorohydrin, Ethylene
Oxide, Formaldehyde, Acrylonitrile.
Emissions of priority compounds declined by 73%
between 1994 and 2001.
Priority Chemical Emissions
4000
3500
3000 ;
i
2500
2000
1500
1000 I
500
0
i Tons .jf
Priority
Chcmtak
Trained
1994 1995 19% 1997 199H 1999 2000 21301 2)102 2003 2004 2005
Year
Process wastewater is water that comes into contact
with process chemicals and is treated to remove the
chemicals and purify the water before discharge.
Waste
O.M5
O.t« '
J 0(135
^
3
"g 0.030
g 0.025 ;
H !
g 0.02CI
g. 0.015
« o.uio
0.1X15
0n
Goal
. _.
999 2000 2(m 2(«I2 2003 :<»M 20(15
Dow treats 93% of this water itself; the rest is treated
by off-site facilities.
Between 1994 and 2001 the wastewater to production
ratio generally decreased by 21%.
Wastewater
I
I
I Wastewater per
pound
production
1W4 IW5 I99(> l'W7 IWH 1999 2000 21101 2IHI2 2003 2004 2UI5
Year
Source: The Dow Chemical Company Environmental Health and Safety
Performance Report. July 25, 2002. The Dow Chemical Company Website.
http://www.dow.com, January 27, 2003.
Data Characteristics and Limitations: As with any industry reported data, the
information above reflects the most favorahle possible analysis of Dow's
environmental performance and relies on the company to accurately report all of
the data.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
316
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
PRKSSURE
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1
Level 2
J
Outputs
J
TYPEC
Indicator: DuPont Chemical Company's Efforts as an Example of Pollution
Prevention
Information on programs that reduce the amount of toxic
chemicals used by industry, and influence the manner, in which
toxics arc used, can be developed into an indicator of pollution
source reduction efforts in general.
As one of the nation's largest chemicals manufacturers, DuPonl
Chemical Company's practices are an example of how industry
can reduce environmental harm. According to the DuPont
Company website they have set the ambitious goal of driving
"toward /ero waste generation at the source." Materials will be
reused and recycled to minimize the need for treatment or
disposal and to conserve resources. Where waste is generated, it
will be handled and disposed of safely and responsibly."
DuPont supports the chemical industry's Responsible Care
initiative as a key program to achieve this commitment.
Responsible Care is a voluntary initiative within the global
chemical industry to safely handle our products from inception
in the research laboratory, through manufacture and distribution,
to ultimate disposal, and to involve the public in our decision-
making processes.
The following metrics compiled by DuPont give an idea of their
progress toward meeting their pollution prevention based goals.
DuPont Waste as Generated
D (»ne tulle rcka.sc
recycle oll-snc
trcalcil ulV-*ilc
O etierjiv recovery ofi-sne
enerjiy ruxovny ort-snc
D recycle (in-sfle
rctaisdt energy
treated nn-site
Total waste generation by DuPont declined 38%
between 1991 and 2000.
Released energy declined 68%, energy recovered on-
sitc declined 12%, energy recovered off-site increased
3%, waste recycled on-sitc declined 95%, waste
recycled off-site declined 62%, waste treated on-site
increased 6%, waste treated off-site declined 2% and
one time releases decreased 83%.
DuPont Waste Transfers
Year
Total waste transfers increased 15% between 1987 and
2000.
POTWs are Publicly Owned Treatment Works; public
wastewater facilities.
317
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
DuPont Waste Transfers
IW9 2(XK)
Total waste releases declined 76% between 1987
between 1987 and 2000.
* Releases to air declined 76% and deepwell disposal
declined 84%. but Releases to water increased 395%
and releases to land increased 693%.
Source: DuPont- Sustainable Growth 200] Progress Report
Data Characteristics and Limitations:
As with any industry reported data, the information above reflects the best
possible analysis of Dupont's environmental performance and relies on the
company to accurately report all of the data.
References
Sustainable Growth 2001 Progress Report. DuPont Chemical Company.
1 November 2002. Available online al: http://www.dupont.com
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
318
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
SOURCE REDUCTION
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
I
TWEA
TYPEB
Level 1
Outputs
TYPEC
Indicator: Drycleaning Industry Perchloroethylene Decline
The dryclcaning industry provides garment cleaning, as well as
pressing and finishing services. The process is considered dry
because it uses little to no water. It docs, however, use a liquid
solution composed of solvents. For this reason, the industry
represents one of the largest chemical users that come into
contact with the general public through more than 30,000
commercial establishments nationwide. (USEPA).
Historically, petroleum-based compounds were the most widely
used solvents used for drycleaning. However, since its
introduction in 1934, perchloroethylene (also known as
tetrachlorocthylene, "perc" or PCF) steadily rose to become the
predominant chemical of choice as early as the I960's. (Linn
2002) Though estimates vary, it is generally accepted that perc
usage today represents as much as 90% of the industry.
As is the case with all chemicals, health effects from perc
exposure depend upon the dose, frequency, and duration.
Data arc inconclusive, but perc is considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency to be a possible human
carcinogen. Additionally, the chemical is associated with mild
symptoms such as dix/iness, fatigue and skin irritation, as well
as more serious side effects that include liver damage and
respiratory failure. (USFPA)
Though the decline in perc usage, charted below, is certainly a
positive trend, it must be viewed with caution. It does not
account for the overall decline in drycleaning that has occurred
in the 1990's due to the increase in business casual dress codes
in the workplace. Industry estimates place this decline at
approximately 5 to 15 percent.
Additionally, it should be noted that the source reduction is
directly related to upgrades in the early 1990's to more efficient
machinery. The evolution of technology has been such that so-
called first-generation drycleaning machines used 82 pounds of
perc per 1.000 pounds of clothes cleaned, in contrast to the
newest fourth and fifth-generation machines that use no more
than 10 pounds of perc for the same amount of clothing.
(National Clothesline 2002)
Since 1986, the perc usage has decreased dramatically,
from 250 to 52 million pounds in 2001. This represents
a 79% drop.
Annual Perchloroethylene Use by the
Dryclcaning Industry, 1986 to 2001
Source: Textile C'are Allied
pcrchloroelhylcnc usage survey.
Trades Association (TC'ATA) annual
Data Characteristics and Limitations: TCATA Jala arc collected annually and
the 2001 data were collected by Industry' Insights, Inc. Results represent
reporting from four primary producers and importers of perc for use in the
dryclcaning industry: Dow Chemical Company. IC1 (now INEOS Chlor
Americas). PP(J Industries: and Vulcan C'hcmicals.
319
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
References
"Cleaners 'perc uxc continues decline, " National Clothesline, August 2002. 30
January 2003. Available online at:
h Up ://ww w. natclo.com/0208/aa 10. htm
E-mail correspondence with Bill Linn, Professional Geologist, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Find'-nga and Accomplishments of the Design far the Environment (iiirmtttt ami
Textile Care Program. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
hltp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/projccts/garmcnt/findings.ritm
Frequently Asked Questions about Dry-cleaning. U.S. Knvironmental Protection
Agency Design for the Environment Garment and Textile fare
Program . June 1998. 30 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr''dfe/pubs/garment'ctsa/factsheet/ctsafaq.
pdfOR http:'/www.envhelp.org/html/drycleaners.html
Linn, Bill. January 2002. "Chemicals Used in Drycleaning Operations." 30
January 2003. Available online at:
http://www.drycleancoalition.org'chemicals.'
Profile of the Fabrieare Industry. International Fabricare Institute. 30 January
2003. Available online at: http://www.ifi.orij/industry/industry-
profile.html.
Telephone conversation with Mary Scaleo, International Fabricare Institute.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
320
EM'S
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
ECO-EFFICIENCY
PRESSURE
TCTEA
TYPES
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 6
Level 7
Level 1_ Level 2
Outputs I
TYPEC
Indicator: Toxicity of Releases and Managed Waste per Dollar of Economic
Output Index
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations
and in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI
data are normally reported by volume of release or managed
waste of a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation
of this reporting system is that it does not account for the
relative toxicities of the individual chemicals. These toxirities
vary such that the many possible combinations of less toxic
chemicals and highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of
toxicity represented by a given volume of release. To redress
this limitation, the FPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the
application of the TRI by incorporating a toxicity score for each
chemical. The toxicity score is multiplied by the pounds of
chemical released or managed in waste; the toxicity of each
chemical release and waste stream can be aggregated to provide
an estimate of the total toxicity of releases and managed waste
for a given year.
This measure can have implications for both human and
ecological health, with declining trends in the total toxicity of
chemical releases and managed waste implying potential for a
more healthful environment. The measure also has
implications for the success of governmental pollution
prevention programs and for activities conducted by the private
sector to improve pollution related efficiencies.
However, increases in total toxicity of releases may reflect
increased levels of economic production, rather than increasing
pollution per se. In periods of accelerated production, the total
toxicity of releases and waste can increase (due to increasing
volumes) even if pollution efficiencies are being maintained or
even improved. The United States has been in a period of
accelerated economic production for over a decade. Since 1991,
the gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by $200 to
$300 billion each year.
To control for the effect of economic activity on the levels and
toxicity of pollution, the total toxicity estimate is divided by the
reported gross product for the economic sectors covered by TRI
(gross product estimate in chained 1996 dollars). This
calculation provides a measure of ecological efficiency by
estimating the toxicity of releases and waste for each dollar of
economic activity.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unitless
measure of toxicity. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of toxicity
over time. For this indicator, the toxicity of releases and waste
per dollar of economic output was adjusted to create an index.
It is conventional to present unitless data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the estimate of toxicity of releases and waste per
dollar of economic output for the baseline year was adjusted to
equal a value of 100; subsequent estimates reflect changes from
that baseline of 100. If industries are maintaining or improving
pollution efficiencies, regardless of their level of economic
output, then the index should display constant or declining
trends.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
toxicity of releases into the environment and managed chemical
waste. It can be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in pollution prevention and improving
pollution efficiencies.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unreported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
321
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first chart reflects data for a core list of chemicals
that have been reported every year since the inception of TRI in
1988; however, the chart reflects data beginning in 1992, which
is when recycling, energy recovery and treatment operations
were incorporated into TRI. The second chart reflects data for
an enhanced list of chemicals that have been reported every year
from 1995 to 2000.
For the core chemicals list, the index has decreased by
15 points from 1992 to 2000 - indicating that eco-
efficiency is improving.
Toxicity of Releases and managed Waste per
Dollar of Economic Output Index
(Core Chemicals List), 1992 2000
120
100
80
GO
40
20
a
jiimiii
IIMIIIII
19%
Ytar
For the enhanced chemicals list, the index has
decreased 13 points since 1995 - indicating thai eco-
efficiency is improving.
Toxicity of Releases and Managed Waste per
Dollar of Economic Output Index
(Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
120
I (XI
*J
II
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. Computer queries of
national summary data prepared January 2003.
Scale: Data from the TRI database can be viewed on the national level, as well as
by EPA regions, stales, counties, cities, and zip codes.
Notes; The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is capable of providing rich
information on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a numlier of ways to inform (he public about chemical
contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental conditions. The
TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals released or transferred
and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts. The Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) expands the potential use of the TRI by
introducing two new dimensions: loxicity and health risk. The RSEI incorporates
toxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical categories and also models the
fate and Ihe potentially exposed population for releases (and some managed wastes).
The result is a screening level, risk-related perspective for relative comparisons of
chemical releases and wastes. The flexibility of the model provides the opportunity
not only to examine trends, but also to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic:
planning, risk related targeting, and community-based environmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects from
toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator are: releases (air, water, land,
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works [POTWs])
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enter Ihe ambienl environment is through their release to air. water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the environment
This includes emissions in the air. discharges to bodies of water, and releases from
the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases to air are reported
either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks, evaporative loses from surface
impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems} or stack
emissions (releases from a confined air stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or
pipes). Releases to water include discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and
other water bodies, including conlained sources such as industrial process outflow
pipes or open trenches. Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land
include disposal of toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land
treatment application farming, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is
Ihe disposal of fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on and oil-site as waste. Waste
management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery and metals
recovery: energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of toxic chemicals
to generate heal or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste treatment (biological
treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical separalion). which results in
varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-time
employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not required to file
reports. Prior to 1998, non manufacturing sectors were not required to report. As
of 1998. electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical wholesalers,
petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic emissions from
automobiles and other non-induslrial sources are not accounted for in the TRI.
Additionally. TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but does not require
that facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are used where
monitoring data are noi available. The use of different estimation methodologies
can cause release estimates lo vary. Also, some facilities may not fully comply with
the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and coverage. Another
limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data collection to current release
patterns. It is important to recognize that release patterns can change significantly
from year to year, so current facility activities may differ from those reported in the
most recent TRI report. Lastly. TRI data can be beneficial in identifying potential
health risks, but release estimates alone are not sufficient to establish adverse
effects. Use of the Risk Screening Environmental indicators model, however, can
allow assessments of human and ecological health risks.
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
322
ESS
-------
References
1999 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, August
2000. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered online from:
U.S. EPA/ NSCI'P, Ann.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box 42419,
Cincinnati. OH 45242-2419, Fax: (513) 489-8695. Phone: (800) 490-
SI198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://wvvw.epa.Hov/tri/triiiata/triOO/indox.htm.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators," l-'act Sheet, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October
1, 1999.
Toxics Release Inventory Relative Risk-FSitsctl Environmental Indicators
Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User'.% Manual for l-l'A s Risk Screening l-nvironmenlal Indicators Model:
Version I 02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, November 15. 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Mnvirnnmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening h'nvironrnental
Indicators are available on at: http://www.epa.gov/oijplintr/rsei/. 31 January 2003.
To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSCA Assistance Information
Service. (202) 554-1404. Tsca hotline@epa.gov).
Bureau of Economic Analysis. U.S. Department of Commerce "Gross Product by
Industry data." 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://www lx>a.dcx ,govAx'a/dn2/gpoc.hlm
Landefeld. J. Steven and Robert P. Parker. "HRA's Chain Indexes. Time Series,
atld Measures of I .ong-Term Economic Growth.' Survey of Current
Hiislnesx. May 19H7. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http://w\vw.bea.doc gov/bea/an/0597od/maintexl htm
323
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
ECO-EFFICIENCY
Discharges/
(emissions
Level 3
Level 4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
Level 5
Outcomes
TYPEA
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Toxicity per Pound Index for Releases and Managed Waste
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database that identifies
annual amounts of chemicals released (in routine operations and
in accidents) and managed on- and off-site in waste. TRI data
are normally reported by volume of release or managed waste of
a specific chemical or a set of chemicals. A limitation of this
reporting system is that it does not account for the relative
toxicitics of the individual chemicals. These toxic ities vary such
that the many possible combinations of less toxic chemicals and
highly toxic chemicals create a wide range of toxicity
represented by a given volume of release. To redress this
limitation, the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
developed the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators. The
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators expand the application
of the TRI by incorporating a toxicity score for each chemical.
The toxicity score is multiplied by the pounds of chemical
released or managed in waste; the toxicity of each chemical
release and waste stream can be aggregated to provide an
estimate of the total toxicity of releases and managed waste for a
given year.
This measure can have implications for both human and
ecological health, with declining trends in the total toxicity of
chemical releases and managed waste implying potential for a
more healthful environment. The measure also has implications
for the success of governmental pollution prevention programs
and for activities conducted by the private sector to improve
pollution related efficiencies.
However, decreases in the total toxicity of releases may not
necessarily reflect the improvement of pollution efficiencies. A
decline in the total toxicity of releases and waste could result
from a decrease in the volume of chemical releases and waste
(improvement in basic pollution prevention), but obscure an
increase in the toxicity of chemical releases and waste
(worsening pollution efficiency). To control for the effect of
volume on the toxicity of pollution, the toxicity estimate is
divided by the total volume of chemical releases and waste for
the corresponding year. This calculation provides a measure of
ecological efficiency by estimating the toxicity for each pound
of release or waste.
The analysis available through the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators produces an unanchored or unitless
measure of toxicity. These measures can only be interpreted
relatively: to display trends and to make comparisons of toxicity
over time. For this indicator, the toxicity per pound of release
and managed waste was adjusted to create an index. It is
conventional to present unitless data intended for temporal
comparisons as an index (e.g., the Consumer Price Index). For
this indicator, the estimate of toxicity per pound of release and
managed waste for the baseline year was adjusted to equal a
value of 100; subsequent estimates reflect changes from that
baseline of 100. If industries arc maintaining or improving
pollution efficiencies, regardless of their volume of releases and
wastes, then the index should display constant or declining
trends.
Since TRI includes only a subset of chemicals to which people
are exposed, this indicator is not a complete measure of the total
toxicity of releases into the environment and managed chemical
waste. It can be inferred, however, as a measure of the relative
gains the U.S. is making in pollution prevention and improving
pollution efficiencies.
There are, however, efforts to move the TRI toward
comprehensive coverage. Presently unrcported in this indicator
is a new expansion of the TRI which adds the reporting of
releases and managed wastes from seven new economic sectors:
electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical
wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent
recovery and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
These industries began reporting in 1998. Currently three years
of data are available; however, do to publishing time constraints
and the recent release of this data it is unable to be incorporated
into this indicators. In future years, this will provide the
baseline for standard TRI indicators and will provide a much
more complete and accurate reflection of the scope and impact
of releases into the environment and managed wastes.
Two different subsets of TRI data are reflected in the presented
charts. The first and second charts reflect data for a core list of
chemicals that have been reported every year since the inception
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
324
HIS?
-------
of TRI in 1988; however, the charts reflect data beginning in
1992, which is when recycling, energy recovery and treatment
operations were incorporated into TRI. The third and fourth
charts reflect data for an enhanced list of chemicals that have
been reported every year from 1995 to 2000,
The charts show that although the volume of releases
and managed waste (for both the core chemicals and
the enhanced chemicals lists) has declined, the toxicity
per pound index has slightly increased. This indicates
that improvements in pollution efficiency are lagging
behind improvements in pollution prevention.
Annual Volume of Releases and Managed
Waste (Core Chemicals List), 1992-2000
Toxicity per Pound Index for Releases and
Managed Waste (Core Chemicals List),
1992-2000
nn
1:0
loo
«)
40-
i'N2 I'M iw4 iw i«w/i iw IWK !')<» :noo
Year
Annual Volume of Releases and Managed
Waste (Enhanced Chemicals List), 1995-2000
Toxicity per Pound Index for Releases and
Managed Waste (Enhanced Chemicals List),
1995-2000
325
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Source: Risk Screening Environmental Indicators, Computer queries of
national summary data prepared January 2003.
Scale; Data from the TRI database can be viewed on the national level, as well as
by EF'A regions, states, counties, cities, and zip codes.
Notes: The Toxics Release Inventor)1 (TRI) is capable of providing rich
intbrmatUm on a variety of releases and transfers of a substantial number of
chemicals at levels of aggregation that range from national totals to individual
facilities. The TRI is used in a number of ways to inform (he public about
chemical contamination and is widely used as an indicator of environmental
conditions. The TRI database, by itself, reports only the pounds of chemicals
released or transferred and does not reflect human or ecological health impacts.
The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSE1) expands the potential use
of ths TRI by introducing two new dimensions: toxicity and health risk. The
RSI-I incorporates toxicity scores for individual chemicals and chemical
categories and also models the fate and the potentially exposed population for
releases (and some managed wastes). The result is a screening-level, risk-related
perspective for relative comparisons of chemical releases and wastes. The
flexibility of the model provides the opportunity not only to examine trends, but
also to rank and prioriti/e chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting,
and community-based environmental protection
Depending on the concentrations and length of exposure, human health effects
from toxics may include cancer and respiratory, developmental, and neurological
conditions.
The data elements used to construct this indicator arc: releases (air, water, land.
underground injection, and disposal) and waste management (recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and transfers to publicly owned treatment works |PUTWs|).
Data Characteristics and Limitations: A significant means by which chemicals
enler the ambient environment is through their release to air. water and land from
facilities. A release is an on-site discharge of a toxic chemical to the
environment. This includes emissions to the air. discharges to bodies of water,
and releases from the facility to land and underground injection wells. Releases
to air arc reported either as fugitive (emissions from equipment leaks,
evaporative loses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from
building ventilation systems) or stack emissions (releases from a confined air
stream, such as stacks, vents, ducts, or pipes). Releases to water include
discharges to streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other water bodies, including
contained sources such as industrial process outflow pipes or open trenches.
Releases due to runoff are also reported. Releases to land include disposal of
toxic chemicals mixed with solid wastes in a landfill, land treatment application
fanning, and surface impoundment. Underground injection is the disposal of
fluids by the sub-surface placement in a well.
Also included in the TRI are chemicals managed on- and off-site as waste.
Waste management includes: waste recycling, which includes solvent recovery
and metals recovery; energy recovery from waste, which entails combustion of
toxic chemicals to generate heat or energy for use at the site of recovery; waste
treatment (biological treatment, neutralization, incineration and physical
separation), which results in varying degrees of destruction of the toxic chemical.
There are several limitations of the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI captures
only a portion of all toxic chemical releases. Facilities with fewer than 10 full-
tin«; employees and those that do not meet the chemical thresholds are not
required to file reports. Prior to 1998. non-manufacturing sectors were not
required to report. As of 1998. electric utilities, coal mining, metal mining.
chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal are required to report. Toxic
missions from automobiles and other non-industrial sources are not accounted
for in the TRI. Additionally. TRI mandates the reporting of estimated data, but
does not require thai facilities monitor their releases. Estimation techniques are
uf.ed where monitoring data arc not available. The use of different estimation
methodologies can cause release estimates to vary Also, some facilities may not
fully comply with the reporting requirements, which can affect data accuracy and
coverage. Another limitation is that there is an 18-month delay from data
collection to current release patterns. It is important to recogni/e that release
patterns can change significantly from year to year, so current facility activ ities
may differ from those reported in the most recent TRI report. Lastly, TRI data
can be beneficial in identifying potential health risks, but release estimates alone
are not sufficient to establish adverse effects. Use of the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators model, however, can allow assessments of human and
ecological health risks.
References
1999 Toxics Release Imvntvry: I'ubliv Data Release. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
August 2000. Printed copies are also available and may be ordered
online from: U.S. EPA / NSCEP, Attn.: Publication Orders, P.O. Box
42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419. Fax: (513) 4X9-8695. Phone:
(800)490-9198. 31 January 2003. Available online at:
http:www.epa.gov tri/tridata'lriOO'index .httn.
"Risk Screening Environmental Indicators," Kact Sheet, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. L'.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1. 1999.
Toxics Release Invenlury Relative Risk-Boxed Environmental Indicators
Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 1997.
User \ Manual for El'A '.? Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model:
Version !.<>-. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Pollution Prevention and toxics, November 15, 1999.
(These and other technical documents relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators, as well as other information relating to Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators are available on at: http: www.epa.gov opptintr rsei. 31 January
2003. To obtain a copy of the model, please contact: TSC'A Assistance
Information Service, (202) 554-1404, Tsca-hotline(« epa.gov).
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
326
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
ECO-EFFICIENCY
PRESSURE
x
Discharges/
Emissions
Level 3
SOCIETAL RESPONSE
Actions In
Level 4
Level 5
Outcomes
Level 7
Level 1 Level 2
Outputs
t
TYPE A
TYPEB
TYPEC
Indicator: Volume of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated per Dollar of US
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Hazardous waste is any waste that is ignitable, corrosive,
reactive or contains certain amounts of toxic chemicals.
Hazardous wastes are regulated "cradle-to-grave" by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA
is a set of laws and standards for the production, storage,
treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Even with proper storage and treatment, there is always the
potential for accidents that could result in: groundwater
contamination, releases of toxic chemicals, or environmental
transport of toxic vapors or liquid wastes. To minimize the risk
of these hazards, the EPA has set a goal to reduce the quantity of
hazardous waste generated in the U.S. This indicator tracks the
progress toward that goal. It monitors the volume of RCRA
hazardous waste generated, as reported through the Biennial
Reporting System (BRS).
However, increases in volume of waste generated may reflect
increased levels of economic production, rather than increasing
pollution per sc. In periods of accelerated production, the total
volume of waste generated can increase even if pollution
efficiencies arc being maintained or even improved. To control
for the effect of economic activity on volume of waste
generated, the volume of waste generated is divided by the U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP) for the corresponding year (GDP
in billions of chained dollars', standardized to 1996). This
calculation provides a measure of ecological efficiency by
estimating the volume of waste generated for each dollar of
economic activity.
This indicator illustrates that the ecological efficiency
of waste generation reported under the old system
improved from 1991 to 1995 as the total number of
pounds of waste generated per dollar decreased by
38%.
Under the new system, there was a slight increase
overall in the efficiency of output from 1995 to 1999.
The total number of pounds of waste generated per
dollar decreased by 6.25%.
Volume of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated per
Dollar of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 1991-1999
a on SVSIOT
Nc» Sntcm
Notes: A measure used in express real prices. Real prices are Ihose that have
been adjusted to remove (he effect of changes in the purchasing power of the
dollar; ihey usually reflect buying power relative to a reference year. Prior to
1996. real prices were expressed in conslant dollars, a measure based on the
weights of goods and services in a single year, usually a recent year. In 1996. the
U.S. Department of Commerce introduced the chained-doliar measure. The new
measure is based on the average weights of goods and services in successive
pairs of years. It is "chained" because th; second year in each pair, with its
weights, becomes the first year of the next pair. The advantage of using the
chaincd-dollar measure is that it is more closely related to any given period
covered and is therefore subject In less distortion over time. (KIA, Annual Kncrgy
Review 1999J
ANl*rUMICAFrAl!U
327
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
-------
Chemical and Pesticides Results Measures II
A cooperative agreement between:
INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
&EPA
PROGRAM IOR 1 NV1RONMI N 1AL
POLICY AND IMANNINli SVSM.MS
Institute of Science and Public Affairs
at The Florida State University
2035 East Paul Dirac Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4025
850.644.2145
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202.260.2090
http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/CAPRM
------- |