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/Export—International 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/EXPORT—INTERNATIONAL 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

-------